Lori Alexander calls the kettle black

[dairyfreelife]

So...how many ways can one spell hypocrite?

But we must be very careful in judging other's sins when most of us struggle with our own. I doubt anyone would advise using this process on the many women who are unsbumissive to their husbands and don't obey them in everything!

lorialexander.blogspot.com/2012/07/tacking-others-sins.html

[Kitty]

I have for a long time so it would be sin for me to see most R-rated movies. {I try not to be too legalistic about this, however, because some R-rated movies have no sex scenes or nudity in them.}

:rolleyes: Well, if there's no sex scenes or nudity in an R-rated movie, then what makes it rated R? VIOLENCE. Or drugs, but it's normally violence. Of course Lori would have a problem with sex and nudity but be perfectly fine with violence. She's everything that's wrong with America.

So, to sum up Lori's post, if your wife isn't being submissive enough you go through the Matthew 18 process, but if your husband cheats or watches R-rated movies you confront him once and simply leave it in "the Lord's hands." Dafuq?

[deelaem]

Even if it were spelled correctly, unsubmissive isn't a word.

[lilwriter85]

:rolleyes: Well, if there's no sex scenes or nudity in an R-rated movie, then what makes it rated R? VIOLENCE. Or drugs, but it's normally violence. Of course Lori would have a problem with sex and nudity but be perfectly fine with violence. She's everything that's wrong with America.

So, to sum up Lori's post, if your wife isn't being submissive enough you go through the Matthew 18 process, but if your husband cheats or watches R-rated movies you confront him once and simply leave it in "the Lord's hands." Dafuq?[/quote]

This. I wonder if Lori's precious sons watch R rated movies that have a lot of sex.

[Conuly]

Even if it were spelled correctly, unsubmissive isn't a word.

Of course it's a word. You're using a word (submissive) plus a productive affix (un-). We understand what she means. Ergo, it's a word. I don't know why some English speakers have issues with our few remaining productive affixes, but it's a bit silly. Neologism is how languages survive. And I can't really think of another word that means the same exact thing as "unsubmissive", probably because it's not a concept normal people need to discuss very often.

[Cran]

As we're talking language.... because a prefix exists, it isn't right to fix it to any word you fancy, is it? I mean, unconstitutional is all fine and dandy, but it's impolite, not unpolite, so I am not sure if randomly fixing prefixes to any word to express something is a good practice. Perhaps "not submissive" or "rebellious" would have served her better.

But the expression she uses is really the last thing to snark on. Why are women always at fault and men never?

[holierthanyou]

Actually you are all wrong. The correct English antonym for 'submissive' is 'normal'. E.g. "That woman is not very submissive to her headship- I guess she must be normal".

[Conuly]

As we're talking language.... because a prefix exists, it isn't right to fix it to any word you fancy, is it?

Why not? If "unsubmissive" catches on (not likely, because it's a stupid concept), we won't any of us be having this discussion.

Why are women always at fault and men never?

Because of apples and ribs and... just because! I mean, God obviously wanted it this way! As seen by the fact that some people live that way and the others are all wrong!!!!111

Actually you are all wrong. The correct English antonym for 'submissive' is 'normal'. E.g. "That woman is not very submissive to her headship- I guess she must be normal".

Well, duh. But let's get back to our sheep here. The prefix un- is productive. There is no other form meaning "not submissive" out there that is already in wide parlance, so there's no reason to disprefer* unsubmissive.

* Yes, that's a real word with multiple citations, mostly by linguists.

[Cran]

Why not? If "unsubmissive" catches on (not likely, because it's a stupid concept), we won't any of us be having this discussion.

I guess this means the discussion won't be lead if the word catches on - which is probably right, but the word hasn't caught on yet and hopefully never will. Not every creative "word" will and should catch on, or we could make a dictionary full with toddler language and demand it be recognized as a valid language in daily life.

[blisterine]

personally, i prefer "independent" or "non-submissive" to "unsubmissive." JMHO!

[Conuly]

I guess this means the discussion won't be lead if the word catches on - which is probably right, but the word hasn't caught on yet and hopefully never will. Not every creative "word" will and should catch on, or we could make a dictionary full with toddler language and demand it be recognized as a valid language in daily life.

A combination of an existing word and a productive affix is hardly "creative" and definitely doesn't deserve the scare quotes you've given it. Productive affixes are part of language. This is how they work. Aside from the fact that it's really very arrogant to assert that you have a large enough vocabulary to make you the arbiter of what is and is not a word, why are you promoting the dictionary over valid, workable syntax? English has rules regarding the production of new words. We're not talking about toddlerisms, we're talking about a normal process in the language.

Edit: Also, a little tangent on how dictionaries work. If the word catches on, it'll be included in any reputable dictionary. You don't get to decide. Plenty of words which started off as baby talk (pee for piss, for example) are included in the dictionary.

[Cran]

Oh, I definitely have my part of the say, by using or refusing to use a word like everybody else. If people don't use it, people like me, it won't become part of the vocabulary.

And i use "scare quptes" as frequently as I like, thank you.

[Conuly]

Oh, I definitely have my part of the say, by using or refusing to use a word like everybody else. If people don't use it, people like me, it won't become part of the vocabulary.

Absolutely. You don't have to use any word you don't like. However, to claim that it is not a word at all, even when it is formed using a regular process for word formation, even when the meaning is patently obvious to everybody hearing it, and even when - and I only bring this up to cement the point, not because I think that there's any validity to the argument that only words in the dictionary count - the first citation of the word is in 1653... well, that's just patently absurd.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/218493?re ... issive#eid

It also kinda makes it sound like the only argument to have with Lori's little quoted paragraph is that she uses unusual words; rather than that it's ill-thought out, badly reasoned, and clearly relies on a profoundly immoral assumption about how spouses should act towards each other. Using a weak argument ("I don't like how she talks") with or instead of a strong argument ("This paragraph makes no earthly sense") makes it look like you have no strong argument. And when your weak argument is wrong on the face of it ("using productive affixes except the way I would is stupid and ignorant"), the effect is magnified.

[treemom]

This reminds me of the argument that portmanteaus are not valid words. Except you know they are.

[deelaem]

Of course it's a word. You're using a word (submissive) plus a productive affix (un-). We understand what she means. Ergo, it's a word. I don't know why some English speakers have issues with our few remaining productive affixes, but it's a bit silly. Neologism is how languages survive. And I can't really think of another word that means the same exact thing as "unsubmissive", probably because it's not a concept normal people need to discuss very often.

Thank you for that hand-slapping, may I have another?

[Kitty]

:rolleyes: Well, if there's no sex scenes or nudity in an R-rated movie, then what makes it rated R? VIOLENCE. Or drugs, but it's normally violence. Of course Lori would have a problem with sex and nudity but be perfectly fine with violence. She's everything that's wrong with America.

So, to sum up Lori's post, if your wife isn't being submissive enough you go through the Matthew 18 process, but if your husband cheats or watches R-rated movies you confront him once and simply leave it in "the Lord's hands." Dafuq?

This. I wonder if Lori's precious sons watch R rated movies that have a lot of sex.

[Patsy]

Thank you for that hand-slapping, may I have another?

Oh, come on. Not every disagreement is hand-slapping, just like not every dissident is a troll.

[deelaem]

Oh, come on. Not every disagreement is hand-slapping, just like not every dissident is a troll.

Guess the irony went completely over your head.

[ems]

:rolleyes: Well, if there's no sex scenes or nudity in an R-rated movie, then what makes it rated R? VIOLENCE. Or drugs, but it's normally violence. Of course Lori would have a problem with sex and nudity but be perfectly fine with violence. She's everything that's wrong with America.

This!