Axiomatic?

[Smegma]

The topic requires that people know what the word means as it's directly posed as part of the question that the topic is for. Also the word is the topic title.

The topic is about the word regardless of however much you wish to deny that.

So  now I have to limit myself to certain words as to not create a sense of fanaticism? Its the best word fitting, I could have used others, however it may have had other connotations that I did not want to add to it. You make these same assumptions when using language.

You're eager to spit out claims without any follow up.

[a-4-year-old]

The topic requires that people know what the word means as it's directly posed as part of the question that the topic is for. Also the word is the topic title.

The topic is about the word regardless of however much you wish to deny that.

So  now I have to limit myself to certain words as to not create a sense of fanaticism? Its the best word fitting, I could have used others, however it may have had other connotations that I did not want to add to it. You make these same assumptions when using language.

no you would just sound a lot less elitist.

[Smegma]

no you would just sound a lot less elitist.

Why does this make me sound as an elitist?

[Demonic]

Because your topic is trying to roar up a discussion in a forum where most members that can be arsed to post are within the 13-16 range of age ( and maybe less in maturity ). Save a few.

Also, Mangled, you'd make less of a fool out of yourself if you wouldn't make random assumptions of people you have no fucking clue of whatsoever.

[Smegma]

Because your topic is trying to roar up a discussion in a forum where most members that can be arsed to post are within the 13-16 range of age ( and maybe less in maturity ). Save a few.

So asking about God is much more valid?

[Mangled*]

So  now I have to limit myself to certain words as to not create a sense of fanaticism? Its the best word fitting.

That is clearly not what I am disputing. I am saying that the topic is essentially about that word, and you have made it about that word simply by using it. The word and its meaning are of equal relevance as they are the same.

You are eager to extrapolate things from nowhere and you seem to be trying to move away from you having only just learned this word.

Also, Mangled, you'd make less of a fool out of yourself if you wouldn't make random assumptions of people you have no fecking clue of whatsoever.

You're assuming I'm making a fool of myself. It would seem reasonable to assume that he has only just discovered this word, I can't think of any other reason why he'd spontaneously make a thread about it, regardless of his "obscurantist" nature.

[Smegma]

That is clearly not what I am disputing. I am saying that the topic is essentially about that word, and you have made it about that word simply by using it. The word and its meaning are of equal relevance as they are the same.

You are eager to extrapolate things from nowhere and you seem to be trying to move away from you having only just learned this word.

Why is it not about every word in the first post then?

[Demonic]

So asking about God is much more valid?

Let's just say it has more of a chance to prove interesting: it certainly did bring out a lot more from quite a few people than you'd expect just by judging their other posts.

You're assuming I'm making a fool of myself. It would seem reasonable to assume that he has only just discovered this word, I can't think of any other reason why he'd spontaneously make a thread about it, regardless of his "obscurantist" nature.

I'm not assuming anything, I am stating it. I can also think of atleast a dozen reasons which are just as logical as yours, varying from him being desperately bored or just curious or wanting to test how SF would react to such a topic. But yeah, assuming that he, well over the age of 20 just found out about the word axiomatic even after years of education in different institutes, not even counting all the endless hours of boredom when he could've heard it earlier... yeah, go you mate.

[Smegma]

Let's just say it has more of a chance to prove interesting: it certainly did bring out a lot more from quite a few people than you'd expect just by judging their other posts.

Why does it have more of a chance?

[Demonic]

Because the concept of God or the question of a divine's being existance is much easier to grasp than your question. Most people have heard about it and have an opinion about it which they are willing to support, loud and proud, regardless of the whole debate's overall productivity.

This topic, atleast for me, is more of a semantic snare-trap: then again, I am quite shallow and English isn't my native language.

I am also terrified of sharks.

[Smegma]

I would argue that most people are familiar with definition of the term in argue.

[Demonic]

It's the context not the term itself which makes it hard to grasp.

[Smegma]

It's the context not the term itself which makes it hard to grasp.

I would think that is the important part

[peemonkey]

I miss the lol's and boxes of years past. You youngsters have killed my beloved forums with pointless arguing. pine to you all.

[Smegma]

I miss the lol's and boxes of years past. You youngsters have killed my beloved forums with pointless arguing. pine to you all.

I was there too.

[Blue-ninja]

Would asking what bukkake means be axiomatic?

[mar77a]

I don't understand this topic. From what I know, something axiomatic is a truth from which you start building conclusions and create a whole system which is sustained by and coherent with the axioms. How can questions be axiomatic? It's like asking if rocks, clouds or waterfalls are axiomatic from what I understand.

PS: I'm not going to read this topic again so don't bother with some counter-retort question. I hereby leave this thread represented by my loyal punjabi-butakeko masterpooni doblarego Demonic.