On the other hand, etymologically it means 'worth regard,' which is exactly the opposite of its use. The word 'cromulent' is in the dictionary for no other reason than that the Simpsons made it up.
Language is defined by its usage. If people are using a word enough, it'll be considered as part of the language, the word 'meh' was not so long a go included in the dictionary and it is considered to denote 'indifference'.
Yes, you can trace the etymology behind a word, but a semantic shift can still occur in language change - so the previous meaning doesn't affect the current meaning (hence it has shifted), the word 'gay' is a perfect example of a semantic shift. From 'happy' to 'homosexual'. With the compounding of the two words 'irregardless' came to be an informal version of the word 'regardless'. What the two words compounded actually mean is irrelevant. 'Irregardless' is an acceptable term to use in the English language, however, I know that there are people who cringe at the sight of the word, so I'll respect that and use 'regardless' instead.
Also, TV can influence language change too - you'll probably find 'doh' in the dictionary as well (just checked and it is).
'Standardised English' is based on common usage and not a prescribed authoritarian order of language. Even then, it's not considered inappropriate to speak anything that isn't "Standardised English", I am a big fan of colloquialisms myself and use them a lot of the time, though less frequently when typing.
Who gets to decide whether or not the benefits make it worthwhile, and what data is used to draw this conclusion?
Who gets to decide? How's a bill passed? Through government. Does this mean the government decide - not necessarily, whenever a bill is proposed, in our democratic society you as a collective have the ability to get the right amendments made or stop the bill being passed altogether. Democracy isn't necessarily going to result in decisions that best
benefit society, but there's no such thing as a flawless system of government. But at least the system places the responsibility on the people who are affected.
As for data. I went through that one: research, studies, scientific method (like social sciences) etc. Yes, it's difficult, but a fool's decision is based on rhetoric. A fool would also universalise the stats for the US, I am sure a good scientist will tell you this. If you're going to based 'knowledge' on rhetoric and misused statistics, then you're no different to a creation scientist, whose expertise is selling unscientific bollocks to back a claim. If judges in court based their decisions on misused statistics and rhetoric, they'd could be putting innocent men in jail, this could be argued of the West Memphis Three, whose prosecutors were spouted rhetoric over evidence or proof and they were sentenced on death row.
But they shouldn't have been banned in the first place.
It depends, would violent crime be worse or better today if they hadn't?
But as mentioned in another thread, you're either free or you're not.
Then you, like I, are not free. Somalian pirates on the other hand, well, you might even then suggest on some accounts that even they aren't 'free'...There's levels of freedom, you can say a person is more free than another, but yes, I'd agree that technically speaking they're not free. I believe this was one of my previous points.
If the word "no" isn't good enough for you, what the hell is?
I need more info. You won't budge if guns lead to major problems, but will if they're the cause of major problems. I could at least do with knowing why you've made this distinction, particularly as it appears to be a contradiction to, "no stats in the world would make me budge". Also, if my analysis of your arguments are wrong, I'd like to know why, if I don't, then I don't have much to go on.
What exactly am I dodging here?
You've not stated why you don't offer the same logic for guns as you do with missiles. You say you'd need more thought, I asked why? I've seen no reason in your arguments that requires you to thing more on the situation surrounding missiles because your arguments support guns by proxy supports missiles. Each time I keep making these kind of challenges you won't actually tell me they're wrong or exactly why they're wrong. I have one thing saying to me: this guy wants civil liberties surrounding arms regardless of consequence. Then: this guys is undecided about missiles because of the consequences. Then: this guy isn't bothered if legalisation leads to a problem but claims if it's the cause, then he'll budge - I think the difference is semantics when you consider than changes would be as a result of gun legalisation; after all, we're not talking about correlation, but where the legalisation of guns becomes responsible.
But, if I'm going to trust your previous statement - you'd budge at cause, then does that mean if the legalisation of guns in the UK were to cause the increase of murders and other violent crime in the UK then would you say, "the UK didn't need them", despite it being in contradiction with a previous statement?
Which makes these 3 statements seem contradictory and I keep raising them because I am looking to be told exactly how they don't contradict one another and how you're able to be undecided about missiles but be so stern when it comes to guns.
But also, when I make comparisons or suggestions about your mentality - for example, where I suggest that it's your kind of mentality that's caused so many problems in the world involving guns, you've barely addressed the issue. When talking about the West arming other nations, you argue that they ought not to interfere, but you pass no judgment the result of the interference, which is what I was trying to get at, essentially, are these countries better off because they're armed?
It's these kind of things that I feel are being avoided and now it's making it increasingly difficult to assess exactly what it is you're arguing, after all, statements you make seem to contradict the logic you're using and the arguments you have been making.