At work.
No you knobb polisher.
I've shown that the prolicavity about which you are making assertions did, in deed, exist and was acknowledged within cultures prior to the 20Th century (To which you've agreed) makes a mockery of your semantic twaddle.
Cheers.
(July 27, 2020 at 1:55 am)Cherub19 Wrote:(July 27, 2020 at 1:44 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: No, dear Tosser, I am understanding your semantics thoroughly.
That your argument currently seems to rely upon 'The words' not existing is, to me, very lacking.
Do you have anything else?
Cheers.
The point is you have thus far failed to prove the existence of the LGBTQ as a community prior to the 20th century. The moment you prove the existence of such a community, my argument is invalidated, and the discussion over a word or name to describe that community becomes moot. Until then, my assertion that the LGBTQ community that exists today is a 20th century development stands. When I say we find no name or word to describe this community that allegedly existed before the 20th century (which is your position) is an auxiliary point, which incidentally hasn’t been disproved either. But the substance of my argument can only be refuted if you present evidence that this LGBTQ community did exist in history. Moreover, you should also prove that this community existed continuously. Hypothetically, if you present evidence that what we call the LGBTQ today existed as a community from isolated instances in ancient history but that its existence is not unbroken and not continuous, the question will arise how is it possible that a community has gaps in its history where it altogether ceased to exist. But we will cross that bridge when we come to it, that is, if we ever come to it, which I am confident we won’t.
No you knobb polisher.
I've shown that the prolicavity about which you are making assertions did, in deed, exist and was acknowledged within cultures prior to the 20Th century (To which you've agreed) makes a mockery of your semantic twaddle.
Cheers.
