tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post4214115685819363322..comments2023-06-19T04:35:06.263-07:00Comments on Skeptic's Play: Negative ≠ Badmillerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-1516830914950041002007-12-18T13:33:00.000-08:002007-12-18T13:33:00.000-08:00Thanks, the collective "we" NEEDED this to be stat...Thanks, the collective "we" NEEDED this to be stated somewhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-27201058519977837542007-11-26T22:27:00.000-08:002007-11-26T22:27:00.000-08:00For a negative category with no "bad" connotation,...For a negative category with no "bad" connotation, what about <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile#Classification" REL="nofollow">Reptiles</A>? <BR/><BR/>To quote: "At best, the cladists suggest, we could say that the traditional Reptila are 'non-avian, non-mammalian amniotes'."<BR/><BR/>Just as with the term atheist, a reptile is defined by what it is not. Just as with atheists, it includes a number of smaller "positive" classifications (such as crocodiles).<BR/><BR/>Just because a classification is negative doesn't mean it can't be useful. <BR/><BR/>Or for something a bit closer to home, "abolitionist" is a negative term (one that unites people opposed to slavery). Doesn't make it bad :)Efriquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08526031804261484547noreply@blogger.com