Split What is Genocide, holocide, neologisms for other -cides (split from “presuppositionalism question”)

[excreationist]

Holocide has a very clear root. The Holocaust was "the everyone burns". The "Holocene" "the when everyone was new."

Everyone burns? According to Wikipedia "The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the genocide of European Jews during World War II"... what's that got to do with "everyone"? Well I guess it means "everyone who is a Jew".

In many respects Holo is usually applied to "everything" in terms of human existence specifically. Even so, the Holo root applies to the flood insofar as everything was killed indiscriminately except for a tiny sample, so it wasn't exactly biocide or omnicide, one which would imply the destruction of all life, such that it wouldn't come back, or the destruction of literally everything everywhere ala vacuum state collapse.

But bilby was saying that it only referred to human killing in the Flood, not life in general (even though Michael Login does use it in that way).

 

[bilby]

But bilby was saying that it only referred to human killing in the Flood, not life in general (even though Michael Login does use it in that way).

Who the fuck is Michael Login, and why wouId I give a crap how he uses words?

You seem to be convinced that a) there are authorities who decide what words are valid; and b) that I am not one of those authorities. You may, paradoxically, be completely wrong on BOTH counts simultaneously.

 

[excreationist]

But bilby was saying that it only referred to human killing in the Flood, not life in general (even though Michael Login does use it in that way).

Who the fuck is Michael Login, and why wouId I give a crap how he uses words?

You seem to be convinced that a) there are authorities who decide what words are valid; and b) that I am not one of those authorities. You may, paradoxically, be completely wrong on BOTH counts simultaneously.

So a guy who enjoys swearing a lot in a "religious texts" forum even though a poster was offended is an authority on a word they coin there?

If you were observant you might have noticed that in some of my posts I put a link to Michael Login's post.

Destruction of only living things

I'm looking for a word that conveys the idea of the utter and sudden end of all life in a large region (e.g. a city). I'm thinking of an event in which all living things in that region suddenly d...

english.stackexchange.com

His post was in a website devoted to "English language and usage". It was in a topic devoted to a person requesting a word that means "destruction of only living things". That topic ranks highly in Google and has been viewed 449 times.

I think it is reasonable to say that his definition of "holocide" is at least an equal authority to yours.

In that link Michael Login says "I've got about 20 dictionaries and none of them mentions that [biocide]" i.e. he might be more informed about words than you are.

 

[bilby]

But bilby was saying that it only referred to human killing in the Flood, not life in general (even though Michael Login does use it in that way).

Who the fuck is Michael Login, and why wouId I give a crap how he uses words?

You seem to be convinced that a) there are authorities who decide what words are valid; and b) that I am not one of those authorities. You may, paradoxically, be completely wrong on BOTH counts simultaneously.

So a guy who enjoys swearing a lot in a "religious texts" forum even though a poster was offended is an authority on a word they coin there?

Sure, why wouldn't they be?

The one is unrelated to the other.

I already explained to you that your offence grants you no rights, and imposes upon me no obligations.

You don't like me swearing? Fucking tough shit.

You find something offensive? That's a you problem.

If you were observant you might have noticed that in some of my posts I put a link to Michael Login's post.

Destruction of only living things

I'm looking for a word that conveys the idea of the utter and sudden end of all life in a large region (e.g. a city). I'm thinking of an event in which all living things in that region suddenly d...

english.stackexchange.com

His post was in a website devoted to "English language and usage". It was in a topic devoted to a person requesting a word that means "destruction of only living things". That topic ranks highly in Google and has been viewed 449 times.

I asked you who he was, not where he posted.

There are eight billion people; 449 views is as close to zero as makes no difference.

I think it is reasonable to say that his definition of "holocide" is at least an equal authority to yours.

No, it's not. Because as the person using the word, I am the final and absolute authority on what I meant by it

In that link Michael Login says "I've got about 20 dictionaries and none of them mentions that [biocide]" i.e. he might be more informed about words than you are.

Or he might not.

But either way, I remain the authoritative source of information about what I meant.

 

[pood]

It's almost as bad as inventing a word.

What the fuck is bad about inventing a word??

Anyway, 'holocide' is a perfectly cromulent word.

Using a neologism in the context of defending neologisms is pretty cromulent.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's almost as bad as inventing a word.

What the fuck is bad about inventing a word??

Anyway, 'holocide' is a perfectly cromulent word.

Using a neologism in the context of defending neologisms is pretty cromulent.

As pointed out, the Holo root is old, so "neologism" is not cromulent. However Neologism is perfectly cromulent to "cromulent" as it has a newly manufactured root: "crom: acceptable/compatible".

Even so, -ulent is old, as per op+ulent, fl+uant, etc as per "root is intrinsic, descriptive to the noun group."

In fact I expect this structure of appropriate conjugation is why the root of cromulent was accepted in application: it is a properly conjugated root, so it flows with the rest of language without sticking in the craw.

 

[atrib]

For fucks sake, Biblegod killed every single living person on the planet (except for a small handful on a boat). Why should anyone take lessons in morality from a god that commits genocide on a planetary scale?

I wouldn't call that genocide because I think genocide involves targeting specific ethnicities or nations.

That is what I wrote. Do my statements accurately communicate the point I was trying to make? If so, why do we need a derail on the nuances of the meaning of the word genocide?

Well there already was a derail on the nuances of the invented word "holocide"...
I think your use of "genocide" is like saying a school shooting at a multicultural school whose victims also included a lot of whites is also "genocide". Proper genocide is where specific ethnicities are targeted.

What the fuck is "proper genocide"? My post makes it clear that the entire human race was exterminated by God's actions. Is there a better word to describe this event? Perhaps. Is it in any way relevant to the discussion? Fuck, NO! I don't understand why you are obsessed with chasing this irrelevant tangent and derailing this thread.

Do you agree that it is hypocritical for mindfucked Christians to be opining about the morality of abortion rights while proclaiming that their deranged, mass-murdering God should be considered the standard bearer for perfect morality?

Maybe it is a case of "do as I say not as I do". Also the Bible seems to have a lot of contradictions so I'd expect problems like that.

So you DON'T have an opinion on the subject, you are simply here to parrot what the Bible says without any thoughts or opinions on the matter. Thats what I thought.

 

[atrib]

Can the derail on the discussion of the word genocide please be sent off to another thread? I want to hear what Learner has to say on the subject of Biblegod's morality and his interpretation of the Biblical texts, not a discussion about the meanings of words in the English language. Thanks.

 

[excreationist]

Well I guess it means "everyone who is a Jew"

... And Gay... And Roma... And Black

Eventually it would have become "Germans who aren't proper enough Nazis."

Well Wikipedia says the Holocaust was "was the genocide of European Jews during World War II". If you think it includes those other people then you could try correcting Wikipedia.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well I guess it means "everyone who is a Jew"

... And Gay... And Roma... And Black

Eventually it would have become "Germans who aren't proper enough Nazis."

Well Wikipedia says the Holocaust was "was the genocide of European Jews during World War II". If you think it includes those other people then you could try correcting Wikipedia.

Do you really think I have the time or inclination to try to fight a whole planet full of Jewish and other folks who have a pointed plurality of control on the narrative of the Holocaust?

It is a clear fact that it was not just the Jews but the gays and also the Roma and the blacks, and would have expanded gradually as they continued to burn everyone until they came to burning each other.

But I don't want to fight all of the nation of Israel and all their interests in being the "star" of that show

 

[excreationist]

What the fuck is "proper genocide"?

Targeting a specific ethnicity rather than all of them.

My post makes it clear that the entire human race was exterminated by God's actions. Is there a better word to describe this event?

Well I saw that other people use the term "genocide" when describing Noah's Flood so I guess it is fine for you too. Sorry about that. Though there are terms like omnicide and Christians sometimes use "cleansing".

Perhaps. Is it in any way relevant to the discussion? Fuck, NO! I don't understand why you are obsessed with chasing this irrelevant tangent and derailing this thread.

It takes two to tango.

Do you agree that it is hypocritical for mindfucked Christians to be opining about the morality of abortion rights while proclaiming that their deranged, mass-murdering God should be considered the standard bearer for perfect morality?

Maybe it is a case of "do as I say not as I do". Also the Bible seems to have a lot of contradictions so I'd expect problems like that.

So you DON'T have an opinion on the subject, you are simply here to parrot what the Bible says without any thoughts or opinions on the matter. Thats what I thought.

"simply here to parrot what the Bible says without any thoughts or opinions on the matter"
If you want an in-depth look at my thoughts on the Bible see: (note it is very long)

God and the Bible - Life's Player

Is the Bible 100% true and moral? Does the supernatural exist?

lifesplayer.com

 

[bilby]

Well Wikipedia says ...

... whatever it's contributors want it to say.

You seriously need to stop looking for authorities to appeal to, and to learn the difference between authority and evidence.

If you want to know things, you need to look at evidence.

If you want to know what a word means, the evidence is in how it is used. Not in dictionaries or wikis, both of which are just chasing the same impossible target you are - the goal of pinning down a living language - which is completely futile. It's easier to bathe a cat.

Your entire epistemology is based on the utterly incorrect belief that there's an authority somewhere (a person, organisation, book, website, or other record), that, if you can find it, will give you access to knowledge. No such authority can exist.

The only path to knowledge is the study of reality. In the case of knowledge about the meanings of words, this means looking at how the words are used by the people who use the words. Even if you don't much like those people.

 

[excreationist]

Well Wikipedia says ...

... whatever it's contributors want it to say.

You seriously need to stop looking for authorities to appeal to, and to learn the difference between authority and evidence.

Well at university I learned that you're meant to mention sources (i.e. authorities) to back up what you say. Though they say never to use Wikipedia as a source. (though I think it is better than nothing while on this forum)

If you want to know things, you need to look at evidence.

Well I think the following statement of yours doesn't have good evidence:
"There are eight billion people; 449 views is as close to zero as makes no difference."

Sometimes it seems you're saying ridiculous things to get a reaction out of me.

Your entire epistemology is based on the utterly incorrect belief that there's an authority somewhere (a person, organisation, book, website, or other record), that, if you can find it, will give you access to knowledge. No such authority can exist.

Actually my unusual views on the Bible are based a lot on my own reasoning rather than accepting authorities... same with my belief I'm probably in a simulation....

 

[Jarhyn]

Well at university I learned that you're meant to mention sources (i.e. authorities) to back up what you say.

Did you actually graduate, then?

Because that's not what sources are. Sources are not authoritative, sources are links for more non-authoritative observation that supports the conclusion based on facts. In general, these facts are expected to be collected dispassionately and reproducibly.

Authority is, by it's nature, not reproducible.

 

[excreationist]

Well at university I learned that you're meant to mention sources (i.e. authorities) to back up what you say.

Did you actually graduate, then?

Yes I got a GPA of 6.28 for a Bachelor of Software Engineering. As part of that I received a HD in Introduction to Psychology A that involved writing essays. (though since my 6 ECT sessions I've had some cognitive problems) I also graduated from a Bachelor of Information Technology degree (with a GPA of about 4 [pass level]).

Because that's not what sources are. Sources are not authoritative, sources are links for more non-authoritative observation that supports the conclusion based on facts. In general, these facts are expected to be collected dispassionately and reproducibly.

Authority is, by it's nature, not reproducible.

Well I don't really have a good understanding of this whole concept so I'll not reply.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well at university I learned that you're meant to mention sources (i.e. authorities) to back up what you say.

Did you actually graduate, then?

Yes I got a GPA of 6.28 for a Bachelor of Software Engineering. As part of that I received a HD in Introduction to Psychology A that involved writing essays. (though since my 6 ECT sessions I've had some cognitive problems) I also graduated from a Bachelor of Information Technology degree (with a GPA of about 4 [pass level]).

Because that's not what sources are. Sources are not authoritative, sources are links for more non-authoritative observation that supports the conclusion based on facts. In general, these facts are expected to be collected dispassionately and reproducibly.

Authority is, by it's nature, not reproducible.

Well I don't really have a good understanding of this whole concept so I'll not reply.

I do apologize for the insinuation.

 

[bilby]

Well I think the following statement of yours doesn't have good evidence:
"There are eight billion people; 449 views is as close to zero as makes no difference."

Sometimes it seems you're saying ridiculous things to get a reaction out of me.

What is it that you feel lacks evidence?

That there are eight billion people? Google will find you dozens of sources that agree that that's a good approximation of the reality.

That 449/8,000,000,000 is a number close to zero? I use a technique from arithmetic - you might have heard of it, it's called "division". I don't think many would disagree that 0.00000006 is 'close to zero'.

Sometimes it seems you are acting dumber than you can possibly really be.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's just.. I've spent my whole life so far understanding structures of knowledge and understanding, how they can be manipulated and applied, and sometimes I forget that I'm practically a fucking alien for how much time and effort I put into this system of epistemology.

"Source reference" is one of the most abused and misunderstood things in all of epistemic investigation, being mistaken and conflated for everything from "proof" to "sophistry". It's right up there in terms of being misunderstood as "metaphysics" which is in fact a field above cosmology.

Really, to me software engineering was just the tip of the epistemological iceberg, since what I was and have always really been after, was an understanding of how to actually semantically complete my understanding of various concepts in language.

It's been a lifelong journey attempting to bring semantic completion and mathematical observation to ideas such as "omnipotence" and "god".

As it is we've had a merry argument back and forth about simulationism and if you really want to investigate that, I would absolutely recommend picking up Dwarf Fortress, and maybe actually run some game theory under the assumption that you 'played god' and invented a universe in a bottle.


It doesn't pay to believe this is actually what is going on of and about our reality as far as I'm concerned. Dipping into the belief that such is true as a description of our immediate reality is as dangerous as anything though

Well I think the following statement of yours doesn't have good evidence:
"There are eight billion people; 449 views is as close to zero as makes no difference."

Sometimes it seems you're saying ridiculous things to get a reaction out of me.

What is it that you feel lacks evidence?

That there are eight billion people? Google will find you dozens of sources that agree that that's a good approximation of the reality.

That 449/8,000,000,000 is a number close to zero? I use a technique from arithmetic - you might have heard of it, it's called "division". I don't think many would disagree that 0.00000006 is 'close to zero'.

I'm going to be a pedant here: you need to define what it is you're working with to tell me whether a number is close to zero...

At work, .0000006 is not close enough to zero to be "close to zero", but .000000006 is.

In truncated binary integer division, .9 is close to 0.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Well I guess it means "everyone who is a Jew"

... And Gay... And Roma... And Black

Eventually it would have become "Germans who aren't proper enough Nazis."

Millions of Russians, Ukranians and Polish died too. Hitler's planned New World Order envisioned ethnic cleansing on a vast scale and enslavement of the remainder. Only those who appeared to be almost Aryan. In Poland, and the East, Germans instituted thr Hunger Plan to kill of large parts of the populatiom by slow starvation.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well I guess it means "everyone who is a Jew"

... And Gay... And Roma... And Black

Eventually it would have become "Germans who aren't proper enough Nazis."

Millions of Russians, Ukranians and Polish died too. Hitler's planned New World Order envisioned ethnic cleansing on a vast scale and enslavement of the remainder. Only those who appeared to be almost Aryan. In Poland, and the East, Germans instituted thr Hunger Plan to kill of large parts of the populatiom by slow starvation.

"Everyone burns"