• Bertuccio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    No one owes you the pretense that you’re not a kook.

    Several people have given you reasonable answers and your responses have ranged from irrational nonsense to TimeCube lunacy.

    Having given a reasonable answer and gotten tinfoil craziness in response, no rational person is going to continue interacting with you like you’re rational.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I never said now implied anyone owed me anything, that’s all in your imagination but does sorta parse or the type of person you are.

      Yes, we are having a conversation, ie. An exchange of ideas and ideals. If someone says ““x is because of y” doesn’t make sense to me because q is not y” for future reference the answer is almost never going to be “hah retard! Why are you so retarded!”.

      They’re not tinfoil crazy questions or they’d be easy to answer, the fact you haven’t answered them and instead turned to personal insults based on your personal perceptions of me proves you can’t answer the question. You’re literally proving my point as to why perception of offense is different than intended offense.

      Hilariously inept, love it.

      • Kethal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I like that you call some nonsense about woman meaning wifeman an “exchange of ideas”. It’s utter nonsense, so in what sense is it an idea - that you thought of it? Or have you been reading “A history of English words for people with preconceived notions”?

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s is literally it’s origin, I’m sorry facts are offensive to you.

          https://www.etymonline.com/word/woman

          adult female human," late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally “woman-man,” alteration of wifman (plural wifmen) “woman, female servant” (8c.), a compound of wif “woman” (see wife) + man “human being” (in Old English used in reference to both sexes; see man (n.)). Compare Dutch vrouwmens “wife,” literally “woman-man.”

          Takes three seconds to look up bud.

          • Kethal@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Yeah buddy. That doesn’t say it means or has ever meant wifeman. Woman has always, from its first use up to now, meant a female human. So you read things and then interpret them as having whatever meaning you like?

            • Madison420@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              You’re a bafoon. Quote where I said it meant wife man or in any way departed from the cited evidence.

              You don’t know what you’re talking about, that’s ok.

              • Kethal@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                “Wif = wife / man = mankind. Literally the wif of men”

                It meant no such thing, ever. Wif didnt mean wife when this word was created. It meant what we now mean by the word woman. And the word wifman in today’s language would mean woman-person. It’s right there in the article you linked that you are unable to understand, or quite possibley, chose to misunderstand.

                • Madison420@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  That’s how a compound word becomes a thing, yes. You’re not making the point you think you’re making bud.

                  You should read the comment chain instead of cherry picking and assuming you know what I meant with your limited context and outward hostility.

                  • Kethal@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    You have no idea what your talking about. It is not and never was a compound word of wife and man. The word wif meant the same thing as the modern day word woman. The word wifman was a compound word that would be translated into modern English as woman-person, with the exact same meaning as woman is used to today. It had nothing at all to do with being married. I’ve read the comment chain, where you say, repeatedly, that the word woman originates with a meaning related to marriage. It doesn’t, at all. You do not understand what you are reading.

            • Madison420@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              In what way boss. Vague answers aren’t a thing worth giving in this context, you’re not a yogi just say what you mean.

              • Bertuccio@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                It’s only vague because you can’t read.

                I’ve already explained this all … but you can’t read…