Posts
same things as men.
or as Adam Smith opine in his "Theory Of Moral Sentiments" what humans want most of al is command over labour.
Being the boss trumps everything.
the question is how do they go about getting what they want?
not impressed by the editor of Sunday Magazine supplement out of the SST.
In her editorial about MEN she used several interogatives didnt she.
From coro st and other semi lowlife teevee programming they have wormed their way into everyday language and into print haven"t they?
It seems de rigeur for nitwit talking heads like Simon Hamptin to use them as some sort of badge of something I am not quite sure of when they are doing their bites on Teevee aren't they.
The fact of the matter is that lazy academic linguists who are not philosophers or logicians have condoned interrogatives and classed them as tag endings haven't they.
Rather than taking a stand they have taken the easy way out haven't they?
Interrogatives are dishonest because they do not adduce any evidence for the proposition that is being asserted and they are disrespectful because they are asking the listener to agree immediately without time to consider the truth or falsehood of the statement and are fallacious arguments from authority.
Worse still they are a form of verbal bullying aren't they.
So to the meat of Emily Simpsons vacuous splurt on men she seems to think that the world should be a normative thing and doesnt seem to be able to take it as it is.
If she wants a grovelling cowering pussy whipped wimp then why doesn't she say so.
Female praying mantis' and black widow spiders are know to devour their mates in the act of copulation because they are bigger and stronger than the male and I have no doubt that if human women were bigger and stronger than men then the same thing would happen here.
or as Adam Smith opine in his "Theory Of Moral Sentiments" what humans want most of al is command over labour.
Being the boss trumps everything.
the question is how do they go about getting what they want?
not impressed by the editor of Sunday Magazine supplement out of the SST.
In her editorial about MEN she used several interogatives didnt she.
From coro st and other semi lowlife teevee programming they have wormed their way into everyday language and into print haven"t they?
It seems de rigeur for nitwit talking heads like Simon Hamptin to use them as some sort of badge of something I am not quite sure of when they are doing their bites on Teevee aren't they.
The fact of the matter is that lazy academic linguists who are not philosophers or logicians have condoned interrogatives and classed them as tag endings haven't they.
Rather than taking a stand they have taken the easy way out haven't they?
Interrogatives are dishonest because they do not adduce any evidence for the proposition that is being asserted and they are disrespectful because they are asking the listener to agree immediately without time to consider the truth or falsehood of the statement and are fallacious arguments from authority.
Worse still they are a form of verbal bullying aren't they.
So to the meat of Emily Simpsons vacuous splurt on men she seems to think that the world should be a normative thing and doesnt seem to be able to take it as it is.
If she wants a grovelling cowering pussy whipped wimp then why doesn't she say so.
Female praying mantis' and black widow spiders are know to devour their mates in the act of copulation because they are bigger and stronger than the male and I have no doubt that if human women were bigger and stronger than men then the same thing would happen here.
No comments:
Post a Comment