No subscription to sex chats for durban
In a world where there is nothing but God, there's nothing left to distinguish him from.One of our assumptions about a world in which the idea of "distinguish" or "distinct" exist, is that there are things to distinguish.Hi Jack, you’ve got to remember that we’re talking about words here.
I knew there was a good explanation for the House of Commons being so far east and not more central.So when you say that something is a “stupid definition,” it seems to me that what you are really saying is that the definition is not what you mean when YOU use that word, and that you disagree with those others who use it in that unexpected way. Even the most abstract beings, such as pi, the Spirit of '76, and the colour blue only have meaning if distinguishable from their absence, or by contrast against other concepts (e.g., 12, a zeitgeist, or happiness).All beings that exist or are imagined must have "distinct existence", and thus be entities.Wouldn't any fictitious character qualify as a being, because s/he can be imagined whereas s/he, having no distinct existence, would not qualify as an entity? Wouldn’t “anything that exists” have been way better? ” It’s sort of like defining left to include right. If that's what usage is, words start to be meaningless, or have such a broad meaning that they don't mean anything.No wonder Hamlet agonized over the question of whether to be or not to be! I answered yes, under the assumption that all beings exist. Which isn't, to my mind, a being, but rather an IMAGINARY being, which isn't necessarily a being at all. We seem to have been catapulted into an era where the prevailing answer is yes. Fake news isn't news, and imaginary beings aren't beings. In this case, I think they would have been better served to be more Concise! Which, again, is kind of where we find ourselves in public conversation these days.