Taylor Seraphim
Angel of Reason
Not tried. Succeeded.
No, as it Is not used in proper English, dictionaries, or common English It has not succeeded.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not tried. Succeeded.
No, as it Is not used in proper English, dictionaries, or common English It has not succeeded.
First of all, there's no such thing as "proper English". That concept is a relic of linguistic elitism. The closest we have in America is "General American English", but that's mostly relegated to formal settings, and doesn't supercede regional, cultural, or subcultural dialects.
Second of all, in the relevant thread, I showed how it was in the dictionary provided to me. (Frankly the only one that's even remotely close to being an "authority" on this matter is the Oxford English Dictionary, but... well, it's not free to access.)
Third of all, as I've said many times, dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. If a dictionary doesn't include a definition that's used among a significant population, then it's the dictionary that's wrong and needs updating. And yes, that includes the OED.
Magic, theoretically, should be able to work over any distance and regardless of knowledge of the target. The placebo effect requires the 'target' to both know what is being done and to expect result X. Not to mention the placebo effect does nothing to things like cancer or what have you. You may feel better, but the cancer is going to be there.
For me that's the key distinction. Magic ought to work with only the caster being aware of it.
"I'm going to define magic myself, then use my personal definition to prove others wrong!"
Why are there so many people on this forum that does stuff like that?
So should the definition of literally also include figuratively?
Why say Magic instead of Placebo?
because one does not need to have to understand the trick to enjoy the performance.
magic is a trick played on ones ignorance. placebo is not always a successful trick
Tricks in different context
Strange, then, that magic almost always requires an extensive knowledge of the world.
No.
It takes extensive knowledge of the specific trick being preformed.
Should the definition of weird be roughly synonymous with "fate", as it was a thousand years ago?
English has no real central authority, so it's ultimately up to you. For what it's worth, dictionary.com's 4th definition of "literally" already contains this meaning shift: "in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually:"
Besides, that bit of frustration is only a few years old, and could still be corrected, or at least kept dialectical.
EDIT: This video seems a fairly decent introduction to this phenomenon of language:
Strange, then, that magic almost always requires an extensive knowledge of the world.
The same placebo effects are replicated by people who do not.
I'm not sure what you mean by this but every one has their own rituals, magic or not.The same placebo effects are replicated by people who do not.
I'm always excited to be tagged but I'm unsure what your saying in this post so I can't elaborateDefinitely not. Compare people like me, @Quintessence , @Riverwolf , @Adramelek , @crossfire , @Iti oj , etc to, say, 99% of posters on the occult subreddit.
Tell that to the theist .... lolIF you refuse to have standardization in a language that language cannot be used to communicate.
I'm always excited to be tagged but I'm unsure what your saying in this post so I can't elaborate