This is what you all get for using "literally" in every sentence.

I meant on the same hand.

 

One of these days I'll take that "Never argue with fools" axiom to heart...

You're trying to compare an acceptable change to an unacceptable one. What would you call that, if not defense?

Not that it's any of your business, but I'm a little too hot-headed for the "turn the other cheek" approach. Besides, my attitude doesn't make you less wrong.

It was more your ignorance that pissed me off, but no biggie, continue to generalize like you accuse me of doing.

 

I think it had to do with how they were trained. They just weren't as good at arching with their other fingers, so they couldn't properly pluck yew. That, or it's an urban legend that stemmed from the similarities between
"pluck" and "fuck"

 

An analogy?

I hope you take "Never generalize another human being" to heart while you're at it.
And just saying I'm wrong or bad or whatever doesn't really account for much, reasoning evidence or dare I say logic helps make an argument out of name calling, pro tip

Can you use the other one for pulling a bowstring?

 

A bad one?

Don't get snippy with me, I gave you plenty. That's what was in those paragraphs you were raggin' on. Did you skip them?

 

Nope, didn't skip em. Might have missed them if they were hiding somewhere between the insults and generalizations though

 

guys wat are you doin all i wanted to do was point this out and now theres all this tension

 

Not for hatok. He went and got his middle finger cut off.

 

This should be a topic about how KHv's definition of spam is "legit superserious discussion"

 

That more than likely comes from America's continual use of biblical language within an official capacity until a few changes some decades ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_finger

The middle and the index finger are, on average, the strongest fingers on the hand and can hold the most tension and pressure with ease. Archers were trained to use both those fingers when operating a bow, using the ring and little finger would be terrible, since their very different heights make equalising the pressure of pulling back a bowstring hard, not to mention they are fairly weak and it would take a long time before you could use them to wield a bow, and it wouldn't be wielded very effectively either.
And you can't switch hands, since the main two fingers which allow an archer to steady a bow, rest and arrow and aim with are gone, you just couldn't hold it properly.
If both index and middle on either hand is lost, you're looking at basically a maimed soldier, in theory.

 

'You generalized.'
'No u.'

You guys...

I think some of you missed the point of the thread. People are not upset because literally is changing into a different word. Language evolving isn't something to be upset about. People have a problem with the dictionary keeping both definitions because keeping both makes communication more difficult. You now have to specify which meaning you are using or make it obvious that you are being silly through tone or adding a smiley. Literally and figuratively were defined specifically so that you would use one when you were serious and the other when you were going for effect. Communication under those definitions was precise, clear and required little to no elaboration. They allowed and encouraged a high standard of communication.

That standard has been lowered not because the word is changing, but because two mutually exclusive definitions are being used at the same time. The miscommunication is made worse by the fact that the original meaning of literally is not fading from use.

hatok, you too seem to have missed the point. While gay is being used as a general insult, it is also being used in the following ways.

People still have specialized homosexual hangouts that they call "gay" bars and clubs.

People still call the annual homosexual marches "gay pride" events and parades.

The word gay has been immortalized as a part of a borderless class of people known as LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans-) individals. This term is used by newspapers and other publications daily.

When someone asks someone else if they are homosexual, their first word choice is 'Are you gay?'.

Finally, when someone refers to a homosexual male, they call them gay. 'Oh, him? He's gay.' 'I have this gay friend who...'

These uses are at least as strong as the generic insult, and they are more consistent. They are used here on KHV. There are homosexual members here who hear themselves described with gay much more often than with homosexual. It is used as a generic insult here as well. If the dictionary were up to date, it would show two separate definitions existing at the same time instead of a straight move from homosexual to lame.

Before you say that this is just a part of the evolving process, think about why we objected. Nova and I object because the definitions are not mutually exclusive. Any word for homosexual, including homosexual, is viewed as an insult by much of society. Homosexuals get a lot of hate outside of generic uses for gay. When one person is not attracted to a person that the speaker is attracted, they ask with derision, "What are you, gay?" It gets a lot worse than that, resulting in direct bullying and downright appalling language. I once asked someone if they had been asked out by someone of the same sex and they proceeded to brag about how they smashed a kid's head in a locker for doing it. They talked about it and expected respect. What does that say about the atmosphere they are used to, let alone their individual opinion?

With the two definitions side by side, homosexuals hear themselves referred to as gay by people they meet and hear people say 'that's gay' about things they dislike in the same day. How would you feel if your name because a synonym for lame?

Defending these uses is incredibly insensitive. In your post, you rated someone lowly because they objected to these two definitions existing at the same time and the atmosphere they create. You are justifying a hostile atmosphere for gays and those who care about gays. Please stop.

 

It's as if a million English teachers' and majors' voices cried out... and were suddenly silenced.

 

I would hope people use common manners and decency in polite conversation when it came to gay, if not, then judge the user accordingly to what you believe them to be for using it as such.

I doubt very much literally will have it's meaning replaced by this, as long as we have official rules such as legalese and other such strict use of language in certain situations, then most words won't change in such a way to popular linguistic shifts. And we have plenty of English words that have double meanings, and we get on alright as a society.