Member Discussions

muir wrote:

You are incorrect: an adjective is 'the word class that qualifies nouns'

You're right, that should be an adverb, then!

muir wrote:

it is, however, sometimes classified as a modifying token.

Finally, thank you.

muir wrote:

Furthermore, it's logically incorrect to say that an adjective modifies a noun: a helicopter is a helicopter regardless of its colour.

Er, no. You've got a fundamental disconnect in thinking how these modifiers are applied. They are applied in the current context of the statement, not in all contexts across the board. When I say, "Gee, that's a blue helicopter", I don't mean that it is not a helicopter, I mean that it is a helicopter that is also blue. I don't mean that the term helicopter is forever redefined as also blue, I mean that at present the description of the thing referred to by 'that' is modified by the new concept.

muir wrote:

Precisely. You did not, however, indicate the use of these modifiers until later, which lead to incomprehension.

And like I said, I do not think that saying "Hey, I want something meaningful instead" is at all a perversion of my request. Furthermore I added the modifier of 'meaningful' in my reply to Giacomo, before any of you jumped on it. Now I can understand if you're complaining about confusion that resulted from my modifying it after you guys crossed that golden threshold to begin posting, but I'm not going to cry you a river if you don't actually read the thread before jumping down my throat.

muir wrote:

Ah, obviously. For the purposes of this debate, Logic 101 might have been the more, ah, logical choice?

Not all grade schools explicitly teach logic (a shame). Statistics is typically the first place a student hears this piece of wisdom, since most of the work done there finds corellations that the students naturally think leads to causations.

I wrote:

Age is an abstraction, and does not cause the behavior that we are considering. Nobody commits a crime because they are 12, or 20, or 34. Another example: Most rapists drink water. But drinking water does not cause one to become a rapist.

muir replied:

Superficially smooth but your analogy is fundamentally flawed: I'm not saying that someone commits a crime because they're 12 (or whatever). I'm saying that someone does not commit a crime because they're not 12 (or whatever), which is an entirely different matter.

I... what? I'm not really sure why that would make the causative statement any less flawed. You said age was the best abstraction available. Responding to that, I explained how it's still an abstraction born from corellation and not a root cause. Ordering your negatives as you did (which I am utterly confused about) still does not change that fact. Age is still an abstraction behind a cause, not the cause itself.

My analogy was an example of corellation not being causation. It did very well, and no amount of reordering of its negatives is going to change that.

muir wrote:

I'm worried about you, you always get so riled up about this topic (and not any others)! :)

I find that I get quite a bit grumpier as I get older =).

Nor is the idiotic reasoning needed, but no one is bringing muir to task for his countless inane mis-observations that I've refuted.

That has absolutely no bearing on your insults. Muir didn't force you to call him, or anyone else, a moron. He has no blame, nor any responsibility. You do.


First, let me give the two criteria from the definition of objective that I posted:
1) Must be based on observable phenomena.
2) Must be presented factually.

Age isn't 'observable phenomena' in the sense that you're trying to use it, but it does illustrate my point better.

You can't look at someone who's 21 and be sure that they're over 18. This is the reason for the recent change in tobacco laws(ID required to be shown to anyone under 25, I believe). It is indeed 'observable' phenomena. In a general sense you can tell that a 50 y/o is older than a 30 y/o, but you can't always tell that a 49 y/o is younger than a 50 y/o.

Age is considered objective,not because it's 'observable phenomena', but because it's a discrete representation of time, something we don't have to 'observe', but can simply keep track of. There is no such thing as an 'objective observation' in the true sense of the word.

The scientific method is an objective method in that it treats every situation the same. That doesn't necessarily imply that the observations made by the scientist are all together 'objective'.



The line is clearly not drawn there because the state of existing for 15 years causes a lack of wisdom.

The entire premise of that is flawed. 15 years causes some wisdom, not a lack of. It must be developed, and that takes experience, which takes time.




Your stance has changed since the beginning of the thread, but I think it's changed enough that a compromise can be reached(and thus, this thread dies).

It can't be argued that age isn't objective, however, it *can* be argued at what age a large enough % of people are mature enough to handle themselves. Perhaps the legal age should be changed to 16(I think anything younger is too young). It would certainly stop youngsters from trying to kill someone and get off as a juvenile.

It's all a matter of what % of the age group is able to handle themselves(it'll never be everyone across the board).

*that* can be argued, but not the objectivity of age.

I find that I get quite a bit grumpier as I get older =).

It must be the age that CAUSES your grumpyness!
Therefore all people of your age are grumpy! That's it!

Oh dear...

I wrote:

Nor is the idiotic reasoning needed, but no one is bringing muir to task for his countless inane mis-observations that I've refuted.

Genteel replied:

That has absolutely no bearing on your insults.

Sure it does. I daresay they caused the insults, and I know the inner machinations of my mind better than you =).

Genteel wrote:

Age isn't 'observable phenomena' in the sense that you're trying to use it, but it does illustrate my point better.

It most certainly is an observable phenomena. But I'll humor your argument in favor of this point:

You can't look at someone who's 21 and be sure that they're over 18.

Observation is not limited to how well you can guess somebody's age. You can't look at a pile of potassium and be sure there's over 6.022x10^23 atoms of them in there, but there are most certainly ways to measure it. Likewise with one's age. I can say with certainty (depending on how much you trust my birth records) my exact age down to the minute. I think that granularity is sufficient for our purposes.

I wrote:

The line is clearly not drawn there because the state of existing for 15 years causes a lack of wisdom.

Genteel wrote:

The entire premise of that is flawed.

That the premise was flawed was my point.

Genteel continued:

15 years causes some wisdom, not a lack of.

Sorry, the state of existing for 15 years does not cause wisdom. I would say that a mix of experiences and the intelligence to understand and digest those experiences causes a gain of wisdom. While you are correct that time is a part of this equation, it is not the only part, which is what you stated incorrectly above.

Genteel continued:

It must be developed, and that takes experience, which takes time.

I knew you'd see it my way =).

Genteel wrote:

Your stance has changed since the beginning of the thread, but I think it's changed enough that a compromise can be reached(and thus, this thread dies).

My stance has not changed at all since the beginning of this thread. Could you explain how it's changed?

Genteel wrote:

Perhaps the legal age should be changed to 16(I think anything younger is too young).

The people of Hong Kong would agree with you, but only for females. For males the legal age is 18. Apparently they believe females are much wiser than males at that age. Of course in Botswana the age of consent for females is also 16, but for males it's 14! Bolivia is just like Botswana, but has it reversed. Those damn Italians though -- they're 14 across the board. Just like Hungary, Iceland and Peru. Lucky Koreans are even lower, and weigh in at 13. But Mexico hits right below the belt at 12.

Now, which culture has it right? See why we need objective reason?

I can say with certainty (depending on how much you trust my birth records) my exact age down to the minute. I think that granularity is sufficient for our purposes.
Einstein is sooo twisting in his grave right now.

Yeah, sorry, I have nothing to add. This is now into the boundaries of opinion and like I tried to say before, everyone should have their own, specialy when it comes to relationships.

My stance has not changed at all since the beginning of this thread. Could you explain how it's changed?

*sigh*

*everyone's* stance changes. To believe differently really does show that you're an idealist.


Let's map this out:

First, you have to find a reason why 15 y/o's should be able to do everything your parents didn't let you do at the age of 15.

Yui:
And totally meaningless. It should be obvious from my context that I want an objective reasoning beyond the blanket age criteria.

According to the context you're using , you mean this definition of objective:

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices:

Reason doesn't exist, isn't an object, and isn't an 'observable phenomena'.



And again, later, you use it.

Yui:
There are several of us with objective ethical systems that have nothing to do with the moral stance of society.


Again, ethical systems don't exist, isn't factual, and most certainly isn't an object. According to the context, you meant that they're uninfluenced by society(objective).


It was about this time that someone pointed out that age was *in fact* objective, and you were asking for something subjective. This was your response:

You guys are confusing my use of the term 'objective'.

Not according to the context that you were using it, but it's your right to shift your stance slightly.


Later, in that same post, you write this:

The intellectual hinderance that a retarded child experience is most certainly an objectively observable phenomena.

'observable phenomena' isn't an object and doesn't exist. You wonder how it is that Muir, and everyone else, got confused. It's because you yourself don't know exactly what you're meaning, only that you refuse to be painted into a corner.



And finally, you decide to post the definition that you've been using all this time:

I said that the intellectual hinderance was an objectively observable phenomena. It is. Again, I am asking for the objective reasons behind why this line is drawn. Please refer to the dictionary on the term objective:

3. b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Except that it makes most of what you've stated up until this point gibberish.


Here's the real kicker. This is a quote by me:
Now this is where I'm confused. We're referring to the term objective(by your own admission), which is an adjective. So which noun are you modifying to make your argument meaningful?

objective criteria
objective thought
objective observations

I asked you which noun was being clarified. Note the meaning of the adjective objective in this context. Yep: Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices:

You responded to that quote directly, and yet, never once clarified that the term objective meant anything except the interpretation I gave above, even though I specifically stated that we were talking about yourargument.


later in that same post, you *do* try hang on to your previous declaration with this quote:


Genteel wrote:

Now, let me expand on that a bit. When there are large differences, then yes, the phenomena is observable. However, it's when the differences aren't so pronounced that causes the problem.

First, let me give the two criteria from the definition of objective that I posted:
1) Must be based on observable phenomena.
2) Must be presented factually.

Note that you've moved on from my above examples of objective being used as an adjective.

But almost immediately after this, you again use objective:


I'll reiterate: My request is for the objective reason behind why this line is drawn where it is.

'reason' isn't an observable phenomena, it's not an object, and it doesn't exist in reality. It can, however, be uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices(to a point, of course. There's never any *truly* objective reasoning in this context.).



Basically, what's happened, is that you've entered into this to 'win'. Obviously it makes you feel better about yourself(yes, this is me playing Psychologist).


Now it's time for you to pick my post apart line by line, and explain why I'm wrong, and you're right, since that's basically all it boils down to. I'm hoping that your response isn't nearly as long as this post, but honestly, I have little hope of that.(me playing Mr. Psychologist again) you find it hard to simply allow someone to think of you, or your actions, as they want(control issues).

Your other option is to start attacking me again, but if you do, please find something a bit more original than 'moron' and it's ilk.

Although your *best* option would be to simply ignore me and let this thread die.

As for me, my work here is done.

Genteel wrote:

*everyone's* stance changes. To believe differently really does show that you're an idealist.

I can understand my stance changing as the years go on, but in the space of a few heated arguments on a mud forum? I don't know about that. I think that colors me stubborn more than it colors me an idealist. But let's see what you have to say.

Genteel wrote:

Let's map this out:

First, you have to find a reason why 15 y/o's should be able to do everything your parents didn't let you do at the age of 15.

Sorry, this was never my request. Since it isn't my request nor part of my argument, your map is sure off to a great start.

Genteel wrote:

According to the context you're using , you mean this definition of objective:

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices:

Hahahaha. The only evidence you give to support this assertion is that muir and your own interpretations support it. That does not count as context that I put forth. The only way you can prove this assertion is by showing where I specifically implied or defined the context as such. You didn't do this at all, thus making a large part of your later assertions completely baseless. I'm starting to have doubts about this map, Captain.

Genteel wrote:

Reason doesn't exist, isn't an object, and isn't an 'observable phenomena'.

Oh no, reason most certainly exists. And we can certainly observe its use in arguments like this. I don't know what bizarre definition of 'observable' you hold, but it has definitely lead you to some strange conclusions. Where do you think all those logical fallacies you were quoting came from? Let me guess: The Argument Fairy. If you really wish to make the assertion that reason is not an observable phenomena and does not exist, by all means please post the reasoning behind how you came to that conclusion =).

I wrote:

There are several of us with objective ethical systems that have nothing to do with the moral stance of society.

Genteel continued his reply:

Again, ethical systems don't exist, isn't factual, and most certainly isn't an object. According to the context, you meant that they're uninfluenced by society(objective).

Huhwhat? An ethical system isn't some bogey man we use to scare criminals like Batman or Spider-Man. They most certainly exist! And no, I also didn't mean that they're uninfluenced by society -- they are very much influenced by society. Even the objective betray some societal influence.

I wrote:

The intellectual hinderance that a retarded child experience is most certainly an objectively observable phenomena.

Genteel continued:

'observable phenomena' isn't an object and doesn't exist.

Hahahahaha.

*Inserts obligatory jab at your reading comprehension ability*. I invite you to justify this statement in the same way you did for 'reason'.

Genteel continued:

And finally, you decide to post the definition that you've been using all this time:
[snip]
Except that it makes most of what you've stated up until this point gibberish.

Wow, that would be a killer blow to my argument if you actually decided to post any good reason at all why this was so. Your refutations above are laughable and hinge on the fact that you think a bunch of stuff doesn't exist. This isn't Star Trek, I don't just invent things like 'Ethical System' and 'Observable Phenomena' to save the Enterprise when Genteel's bird of prey is about to swoop down blow us up. How in the world would observable phenomena not exist? I'm observing the phenomena of someone's twisted explanation right now!

I'm hoping that your response isn't nearly as long as this post, but honestly, I have little hope of that.(me playing Mr. Psychologist again) you find it hard to simply allow someone to think of you, or your actions, as they want(control issues).

I have absolutely no trouble with you thinking of me as you want. I'll simply point out your ridiculously stupid arguments and leave it at that.

Lucky Koreans are even lower, and weigh in at 13. But Mexico hits right below the belt at 12.

Now, which culture has it right? See why we need objective reason?

Why are the Korean's lucky? Is it luckier to have lower ages of consent? Are the Mexicans luckier than the Koreans?

[Adjectivity]
Er, no. You've got a fundamental disconnect in thinking how these modifiers are applied. They are applied in the current context of the statement, not in all contexts across the board. When I say, "Gee, that's a blue helicopter", I don't mean that it is not a helicopter, I mean that it is a helicopter that is also blue. I don't mean that the term helicopter is forever redefined as also blue, I mean that at present the description of the thing referred to by 'that' is modified by the new concept.

An adjective is a modifying token; that is, it modifies a sentence. It's actual function, though, is qualification of nouns :)

[Analoguicity]
I... what? I'm not really sure why that would make the causative statement any less flawed. You said age was the best abstraction available. Responding to that, I explained how it's still an abstraction born from corellation and not a root cause. Ordering your negatives as you did (which I am utterly confused about) still does not change that fact. Age is still an abstraction behind a cause, not the cause itself.

Unask the question! I meant I should have liked for you to use a different analogy: mine was -as you well picked- still flawed but much closer to the context we're dealing with: an older person generally will know better than a young one. Of course, it should be noted that while correlation does not equal causality, neither does it rule it out.

Age is not an abstraction behind (of, you mean?) a cause -it doesn't abstract maturity (or worldliness, experience etc.) which is the immeasurable reason behind all this fuzz. Perhaps a better wording would be that age is a substitute for this quantity.

When dealing with sufficiently large sets, a mean, an average must be found for all rules and that is what age represents: with a very small error margin it is a fair approximation of a person's maturity (or worldliness etc.). Another good trait of age is that it is easily controllable and requires minimal supervision to proceed :)

So age is not meaningless, either.

The people of Hong Kong would agree with you, but only for females. For males the legal age is 18. Apparently they believe females are much wiser than males at that age

Hehe. That's the reason, yeah. Not something like "I'm an old geezer but I like young girls --and those damn teenage boys with their good looks and lack of manboobs better not get in the way!"

Sorry about the writing. I've been reading Shakespeare.

.

> Is it luckier to have lower ages of consent?

You didn't know? Young chicks are like a rabbits foot with four-leaf clovers growing from the foot fungus. The younger the luckier! Gotta catch 'em all!

(Comment added by unifex on Wed Jul 14 15:04:49 2004)

Also, each leaf on the clover has a tiny, beautiful rainbow that angels dance on.

So lucky 13 it is then!
Thanks for your well-reasoned opinion.
We're going with 16 here, just in case your objective research is wrong.

> So lucky 13 it is then!

Ah, you finally got it!

> We're going with 16 here, just in case your objective
> research is wrong.

Is that for both males and females? What about your objective research? Does that mean you think the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Gabon, Poland, Sweden and Morocco, all with an age of 15 are wrong? Is this for all ages, or is there a sliding scale like in Missouri, where the age of consent is 14 if you're over 18 but under 21?

Oh no, reason most certainly exists. And we can certainly observe its use in arguments like this.

All arguments are observable.
All arguments are reason.
----------------------------
(All) reason is observable.

Fallacy of illict process (of the minor term).

I wrote:

Oh no, reason most certainly exists. And we can certainly observe its use in arguments like this.

Razzer replied:

All arguments are observable.
All arguments are reason.
----------------------------
(All) reason is observable.

Fallacy of illict process (of the minor term).

Or it would be if I had stated that all reason was observable. Since I didn't, no such fallacy exists in my argument. Thanks for playing, though.

Umm... opps... *hides*

Razzer, if you want to argue the 'reason exists' argument, look up the word exist under dictionary.com.


Be prepared to get into a semantic fight, though.

Or simply ignore him, and go on with your life :)

Genteel wrote:

Razzer, if you want to argue the 'reason exists' argument, look up the word exist under dictionary.com.

Exist:

ex·ist Audio pronunciation of "exist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zst)
intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists

1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: “Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category” (Thomas G. Exter).

Reason is an abstract concept just like wealth, poverty, and customs. But I guess to someone with as poor reading comprehension as you, the only things that exist are physical.

Or simply ignore him, and go on with your life :)

A wise choice. It's better to pick on folks who won't point out how wrong you are.

Actually, my argument was in response to my misinterpretation of what Uni said. I thought he was saying reason was observable; but, of course, that wasn't the case :=/.

But, I'm actually with Uni on this one. If you look at the Latin root of exist (existere, exsistere, to come forth, be manifest), I personally think reason falls under this, but I'm probably too lazy to get into a large fight about it.

Reason is an abstract concept just like wealth, poverty, and customs. But I guess to someone with as poor reading comprehension as you, the only things that exist are physical.


You know, successfully baiting someone shouldn't be this fun.


Now then, let's put my useage of the word 'exists' in context :)


Here's a quote of me earlier.

According to the context you're using , you mean this definition of objective:

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices:

Reason doesn't exist, isn't an object, and isn't an 'observable phenomena'.

Now then, let's look at the definition of objective.


ob·jec·tive P Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj.
1) Of or having to do with a material object.
2) Having actual existence or reality.
3a) Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
3b) Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

When I said it 'didn't exist', I was referring to the fact that it didn't fulfill the requirements of the 2nd definition, ie, exists in the physical world.

You'll note that this jives with the first definition of exist.

In other words, your arguments above are flawed :) Better go back and find a valid reason to refute my posts ;)


*expects a semantic argument*

Genteel wrote:

[snip]
2) Having actual existence or reality.

When I said it 'didn't exist', I was referring to the fact that it didn't fulfill the requirements of the 2nd definition, ie, exists in the physical world.

Wrong again. "Actual existence" or "reality" do not have existence in the physical world as a requirement.

Ten bucks says Genteel can't find proof of this assertion!

Is that for both males and females? What about your objective research? Does that mean you think the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Gabon, Poland, Sweden and Morocco, all with an age of 15 are wrong? Is this for all ages, or is there a sliding scale like in Missouri, where the age of consent is 14 if you're over 18 but under 21?

Yes.
I'm not into objectivity.
Yes.
I believe there's a sliding scale of criminality, ranging from rape to corruption of a minor.

It should be set at sixteen because it matches the Billboard top ten hit song list for the past 50 years.

Sixteen Candles
Sweet Little Sixteen
Sweet Sixteen
Christine Sixteen
Sixteen
Unsweet Sixteen
Happy Birthday Sweet Sixteen
You're Sixteen
Only Sixteen
Always Sixteen
Sixteen Going on Seventeen
Sixteen Tons (heh)
Sixteen Decembers
When You Were Sweet Sixteen


Happy birthday, happy birthday, baby
Oh, I love you so

Sixteen candles make a lovely light
But not as bright as your eyes tonight (as your eyes tonight) (Oh)
Blow out the candles, make your wish come true
For I'll be wishing that you love me, too (that you love me, too)

You're only sixteen (sixteen)
But you're my teenage queen (you're my queen)
You're the prettiest, loveliest girl I've ever seen (I've ever seen) (OH!)

Sixteen candles in my heart will glow
For ever and ever for I love you so (for I love you so)

You're only sixteen (sixteen)
But you're my teenage queen (you're my queen)
Oh, you're the prettiest, loveliest girl I've ever seen (I've ever seen) (OH!)

Sixteen candles in my heart will glow
For ever and ever for I love you so (for I love you so)
For I love you so!!!


Nobody writes love songs for 13 year olds. :-P

Yui, you're playing with context again ;)


check it,
reality:

2. That which is real; an actual existence; that which is not imagination, fiction, or pretense; that which has objective existence, and is not merely an idea.



but check this:

Yesterday, after getting out of the theater(Watched I, Robot, which is a good movie, BTW), I asked my younger brother if he could think of an objective way to determine, whether or not the relationship between two people was legal.


He thinks about it for a good 10-20 minutes, and finally tells me age. I asked him if that was his 'final answer'. He stops, asks me to let him think about it some more. About an hour later he comes back to me and tells me that age is the only objective way of dealing with it. At that point, I explained to him your demands that age wasn't objective, and that it should be done based upon mental competence, intelligence, emotional maturity, etc.

his response?(and I loved it)

Anytime you spend time on each individual, that's subjective(they are the 'subject'). To be objective, they should be treated as an 'object', or objectified, ie, what you're asking for is actually subjective, not objective.



Myself, I simply laughed, and told him I agreed :)

Genteel wrote:

Yui, you're playing with context again ;)

Care to point out where this is occuring to any significance? (I doubt you will, this is likely just another one of your baseless claims again.)

Genteel wrote:

check it,
reality:

2. That which is real; an actual existence; that which is not imagination, fiction, or pretense; that which has objective existence, and is not merely an idea.

Wow, reason is all of that. Funny I don't see any mention of 'physical' in that description at all. Thanks for proving my point.

Genteel wrote:

At that point, I explained to him your demands that age wasn't objective...

I wrote about a week ago:

You need to go take reading comprehension lessons with Genteel. I never said that age wasn't objective. If I did, why would I have stated that "age meets one of the definitions of objective" in the above post that you quoted but failed to comprehend? And if I think age is objective, well, by golly that means I must not be in your bizarro world.

You must be talking about your bizarro world. I guess this makes sense, since you're talking as if the opinion of your younger brother actually mattered.

Genteel wrote:

Anytime you spend time on each individual, that's subjective(they are the 'subject').

I guess stupidity runs in the family. My wife has a bachelors degree in Sociology, and believe you me there are both subjective and objective research methodologies, both focusing on individuals. The former typically described as 'Qualitative' research and the latter typically described as 'Quantitative'. Now I tend to trust someone with four years of good ol' university learnin' to your younger brother, who apparently no expertise at all.

Now lest this turn into an appeal to anonymous authority, I could just refute you the old fashioned way. You've proven yourself incredibly inept with the dictionary so far, and I don't expect things to change now. So I'd like you to point out where spending time on the individual rules out any notion of objectivity. It's only prudent if you'd like to actually backup your claims for once.

(Comment added by unifex on Sat Jul 17 22:30:11 2004)

Oh also, I should clarify that the above quote about reading comprehension lessons was originally directed at someone else in this thread, not Genteel. But it serves just fine to illustrate that Genteel can't read worth a damn anyway.

Genteel's brother wrote on objectivity:
Anytime you spend time on each individual, that's subjective(they are the 'subject'). To be objective, they should be treated as an 'object', or objectified, ie, what you're asking for is actually subjective, not objective.

That's not right. Objectification is a concrete term, treating something as an object, not an 'object'.

The correct way to define objectivity: that which does not depend on the observer or the context.

Yui wrote on eXistenz:
Wow, reason is all of that. Funny I don't see any mention of 'physical' in that description at all. Thanks for proving my point.

Well, that's not entirely true; there's really no common concept of 'reason', everyone has their own idea of what's reasonable (most of whom are of course wrong since I'm right). However you're correct in that reason could exist.

Yui wrote:
Now lest this turn into an appeal to anonymous authority, I could just refute you the old fashioned way. You've proven yourself incredibly inept with the dictionary so far, and I don't expect things to change now.

You scold Genteel for Anonymous Authority and then you commit an Ad Hominem Circumstantial? Tsk, tsk :)

.