Sure they can write laws making it illegal to claim the king of Thailand is a doddering old fool anywhere in the world. Good for them.

They have no legal right to enforce it on me, though. If I visit their country, of course, I will be subject to their laws. But they can’t apply it to me until then.

They can write whatever they like, but in practical terms, they can only enforce their laws inside their borders.

No European law applies outside Europe. That’s kind of the nature of laws.

A run of market sales would drive down the price.

And if you can’t afford to rent, then got being able to buy is not a significant difference.

And what, leave the apartments empty? Have them earn zero money, rather than some money?

Do they not have flatbed tow trucks?

According to Seaspan, Moffatt’s EV was denied boarding on their barge because it was inoperable and not on a flatbed tow truck or trailer.

Context is as important to language as syntax.

Context is important to the message, yes. But if I need the context to understand a particular word, I would understand the message just as well without that word.

Yea. Not helpful.

I’m aware of the existence of contranyms. None of the examples you gave apply, as they just have different meanings, or the same leaving with different connotations.

Right, that’s “speaking figuratively.” There are rules for that.

But a word that means the opposite of what it means is not a useful word.

I’d hate to find a box in my lab marked “inflammable.”

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

I don’t think 29 year olds are millennial, are they? Or is this an older meme?

Are we expecting the Democratic party to actually support him? Seems the national leadership would rather see someone else in his spot.

I’m trying to determine if we are using words to mean the same things. It seems we are not.

Since I don’t take issue with your goals, only your vocabulary, I suppose that continuing to discuss it is pointless.

Would you claim that the soap box failed of no-one spoke against him?

Would you claim the jury box failed if he was never brought to trial?

What liberty are you talking about? The liberty of approved leaders? It’s a failure because we voted for a bad leader?

We got the leader we voted for. The failure is in the people.

That’s not my idea of liberty at all. But you can’t say the ballot box failed, just because the people elected the worst president in the history of people in suits.

So, you propose to enforce liberty by not letting us choose our own leaders? Democracy, as long as your approve our choices?

Because we don’t want them doing surge pricing.