Man, I knew I wasn't crazy thinking Bastille were lame! They were the headliners for a big outdoor party I went to. After ten minutes of standing around marvelling at their inability to get the crowd enthused, I slipped away to spend the next hour being served by a practically private free champagne stall and watching…

The entire point in the first place is that you shouldn't care that much. I wasn't backing out, I was repeating the point! God you're thick... you've somehow missed the entire meaning of the thread.

But I don't understand how this finding would support that conclusion, rather than its opposite. A universal utterance is surely, if anything, evidence for inherent aspects of language; in no circumstance evidence against it.

"With an attitude like that, why are you on Kotaku?"

I didn't understand at all how the universality of 'huh' as an expression of bemusement was supposed to discredit inborn grammar theories.

And the difference between a word and a vocalisation with meaning isss?

Your dogs speak?

A lot.

It's not of serious consequence to humanity. Throwing a little paddy and insisting that it really really is... is making you look like an idiot. It really... really... isn't. It's of very little consequence, and these console manufacturers are neither Hitler nor Mother Teresa. They're just making gaming machines. For g…

Are you serious? Anybody who tells you that this trivial bullshit is not worth getting upset about must be "trolling" and is juat attempting to deflect from your important argument? Christ... you're far gone, mate.

Depends how you define 'important'.

Haha. No, I don't. That's the point. I don't care. Nobody with a life cares. Go do something productive, because whatever your comment was about, it was painful to read. This shit isn't important.

chuckle

I don't have a clue what you're talking about but it seems to be some kind of trivial, petty whine about some lame argument.

Come on dude, your noodle is built for abstraction. Use it.

I never said psychology isn't a science. What are you talking about?

Philosophy is a social science and psychology isn't..? Ugh, whatever man. I don't know if you're trolling or what now, but in any case I don't see any purpose to this conversation.

I've never seen philosophy referred to as a social science, by anybody or any institution. Are you confusing it with psychology? In case I was being stupid I checked the Wiki article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s… , but came up short. Experimental science uses observation as its exclusive method of…

Uh... no? Not by any common definition, and it isn't classified as such by academia - reputable universities, for instance. Science concerns itself with explaining and predicting observations of the universe. Philosophy may arguably concern itself to some extent with such questions, but its scope of inquiry is far…

Aside from your dodgy use of the word "Aristotelian", a term which doesn't accurately apply to logic post-1900... what you say is true. But I can't see how it's relevant to anything I personally said.