• JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    And yet that’s just coming from someone with a different valuation upon such, and doesn’t mean OP is off-base, whatsoever.

    But I just commented on my own situation here, if you care to examine my own example.

    • FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Language is imprecise. That’s where the ambiguity needs tolerance. A child can be a grown person and a person growing up, depending on context. There is no orphanage for people in their 40s. The original argument seems to hinge on the word child being basically equal in meaning to human being in all contexts. Which isn’t the case all the time. And it isn’t in the context of orphans.

      • JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Language is imprecise.
        Language is eternally EVOLVING, mate, ever and always.

        “And it isn’t in the context of orphans.”
        Like I said, that’s just your personal Howdy-Do, so good for you there, mate.