FfaerieOxide

old children's film Bear

1998 British or 1988 French?

I'm sick of "Cocaine _______". What, wolfy's gonna ask to borrow €40 I don't have?

Give me Heroin Ghost who shoots up to feel alive or LSD Tree Frog who wants to know what people keep licking him.

If you're not making with the example you insist exist I'm not even gonna read your posts as they're a waste of time.

No I get it, you can't prove your point. You don't have to keep running around with dictionaries that don't prove your point to impress me. It doesn't change my view of you at all to know you're wrong.

Are you still on this? You went in circles so I left.

Still no example, huh?

I'm happy for you ...or sorry that happened.

That's alot of words which notably are not an example of the adjective "illegal" being used as though it were a noun to describe a human being and it not being derogatory.

Come on, bill Clinton. You just gonna yap about what "is" is or you gonna prove your point? Make with the example.

The link you offered does not seem authoritative.
The example it proffered of:

“Sometimes I don’t always feel like jogging” doesn’t make any sense.

Makes perfect sense.

Are you going to keep litigating "Sometimes inherently means sometimes not" or are you going to provide an example of a non-pejorative use of referring to a human being as though they themself were illegal?

"Sometimes" is different than "Sometimes although not always"

That I why I had to use different words to type the two different concepts.
Your definition only listed the first, which does not inherently indicate the second.

The definition does not indicate it can be not derogatory—which makes sense because it's derogatory.

You despite claiming sans evidence that it is possible to refer to a human being with a pejorative adjective and it be anything other than derogatory, won't even back up your claim with a single non-derogatory example of its use.

I get why you won't—'cause you can't—but if you were right you'd think You could give an example rather than litigating the implied corollaries to "sometimes".

How the hell are you supposed to play the game and “be better” than the opposition, when the opposition is taking advantage of you?

You do that by not murdering them after you have taken power and over the means of production.

Having all the world’s fortune in the hands of about 10 people. We can’t stop this by playing nice and asking nicely.

Alright so you've seized all the money in the world and taken over all the land and machinery that enables production through the application of labor via militant witholding of the same. You and your comrades have all the guns.

...why at that point do you need to use those guns to murder people who are no longer holding murderous control over those common resources?

I refuse to acquiesce to or defend a system of belief that requires people die.

Once you win, you don't kill or you never had moral authority to employ violence in pursuit of winning in the first place.

see I don’t respect the BBC.

You shouldn't.

what makes that cutoff meaningful?

Fetuses don't have rights.

I’m also saying you can’t sieze all their assets. money isn’t just money, and its not the only thing that’s money.

What the heck are you talking about? Find the things which can be exchanged for goods and services and that those things away. Cart off shiny rocks. 0 out electronic ledgers

Billionaire handshakes are meaningless. If you've seized all the food and means of production what does it matter if gardeners try to play Parker Bros. with one another?

being human
which is what?

A supernatural comedy drama on BBC3

why?

What are you, a toddler? You asked for a cutoff and I gave you one. If you didn't want an answer, don't ask.

okay so when I die where does that dignity go? my writings? my body, my soul?
because your version of this idea sounds anawful lot like a soul.

What's your point? I never mentioned "a soul" as it relates to human dignity but if even you seem to be using it as equivalent to or allegory for writings so what if it does sound like that?

Like you seem to be trying to sculpt my position to some preconceived notion you have of organized faith so you can then attack that when I have never mentioned religion.

I just said you shouldn't murder people once you've already seized "their" assets.