Florida plans to become first state to eliminate all childhood vaccine mandates

[Phantasmal]

I’m over 65 and can’t get a COVID vaccination and it’s blowing up in Houston.

The emergency rooms are full of COVID patients.

 

[Nordberg]

I’m over 65 and can’t get a COVID vaccination and it’s blowing up in Houston.

The emergency rooms are full of COVID patients.

Michigan will allow seniors to vaccinate. You have a Republican rule, it will be tough to get them. Steve Martin had to cancel some comic dates because he has Covid.

 

[Phantasmal]

Michigan will allow seniors to vaccinate. You have a Republican rule, it will be tough to get them. Steve Martin had to cancel some comic dates because he has Covid.

You’re fortunate!

 

[Hawkeye10]

Sure, and I certainly believe that cells exist, as well as bacteria. I also suspect that some microbes that are classified as biological viruses are actually bacteria. The issue here is not that people don't see microbes that are labelled as biological viruses in electron microscopes. The issue is whether they actually fit the description of actual biological viruses.

You might enjoy this.....I have only just started so I dont know how good it is yet:

 

[Scott]

If Wikipedia's sources in a particular article are bad, they can frequently be shown to be bad.

If you refuse to accept any Wikipedia entry as erroneous, you've got problems.

Sometimes, I wonder if you're really listening to what I'm saying. What part of "If Wikipedia's sources in a particular article are bad, they can frequently be shown to be bad" don't you understand?

What part of "cannot be shown if you refuse to allow it to be shown" do you not understand. It's like you're not even listening to me.

First of all, I literally quoted what I'd already said, you came up with an entirely new line. But let's go with your new line- it's clearly an unsubstantiated assertion by itself. If you'd like to provide evidence for said assertion, by all means do so.

 

[Scott]

I'm having a conversation with you and I'm telling you that the issue of intelligence is key to understanding why many people believe that women should be allowed to terminate their pregnancies.

You are saying that "intelligence" is somehow the key to understanding why "many" people believe that women should have killing supremacy

For the audience of this thread, I have responded to this post from IBDaMann in my new abortion thread, specifically in the following post:

Post in thread 'Florida plans to become first state to eliminate all childhood vaccine mandates'

Friday at 8:20 PM

I'm having a conversation with you and I'm telling you that the issue of intelligence is key to understanding why many people believe that women should be allowed to terminate their pregnancies.

You are saying that "intelligence" is somehow the key to understanding why "many" people believe that women should have killing supremacy and should be allowed to hire professional contract killers to kill living humans with impunity whereas men must obey the law and refrain from hiring any contract killers.

Please explain this "key."

• IBDaMann

• 

 

[Scott]

In any event, I do not accept Wikipedia and I will never accept errors.

I accept Wikipedia as a starting point in discussions.

You are chanting.

No, I'm simply pointing out that "I accept Wikipedia as a starting point in discussions."

Yes, you accept drug pushers as a starting point for festivities, you accept pimps as a starting point for women coming into the job market,

According to who?

you accept Wikipedia as a starting point for harmful, ideological indoctrination,

No, I accept the fact that many people use Wikipedia as a starting point for discussion on various subjects. I myself use it as a starting point for some subjects where I think their information is fairly accurate. In subjects where I think their information -isn't- accurate, I generally don't use it as a starting point. That being said, sometimes even when I think it has some glaring innacuracies, I -still- use it, because I know that it is fairly accepted amoung a lot of people including posters in this very forum, as a starting point. I can then point out its flaws with other sources of information.

and you accept online casinos as a starting point for budding investors.

Again, according to who?

 

[Scott]

What's the difference between a definition or definitions of a word and the use or uses of a word?

Don't you think you should have asked me that up front?

I distinctly recall telling you that I didn't see a difference between them.

... and you distinctly recall never having asked me.

I literally -told- you that I didn't see a difference. If you didn't understand why I didn't see a difference, you could have asked me at that point. But you didn't, so I finally decided to ask you myself as to what difference you saw.

 

[Scott]

Many words have more than one definition.

Nope. No English words have a definition. All have wide-ranging descriptions, though.

Like me, ChatGPT doesn't seem to see a difference between definitions and descriptions. Quoting my question and ChatGPT's response:
**
Do dictionaries provide common definitions for words?

ChatGPT said:​

Yes — that’s a good way to put it.

Dictionaries provide common definitions (or descriptions) of how words are most often used. They don’t give every possible meaning, but they usually cover:

• Primary/common meanings (the sense most people think of first).
• Secondary meanings (other established uses).
• Specialized or technical meanings (for particular fields, if relevant).

In short: dictionaries aim to give you the shared, widely understood meanings of a word so people can communicate more clearly.
**

 

[Scott]

Many words have more than one definition. I imagine most if not all of them didn't start that way. Some definitions increase in popularity, others fade into obscurity. I don't see any of this 'must be forthwith adhered', especially not when talking informally with people. All I see is one beacon to maintain a bit of clarity- sources such as dictionaries and encyclopedias. Sure, there are other definitions, people can make them up as they go, but to get into a dictionary, there generally has to be a pretty established base of people using the definitions contained therein.

Error. To get into a dictionary, the owner of the dictionary website simply has to decide to put it in his dictionary.

False. Here's what I asked ChatGPT just now:
**
What criteria do dictionaries use to decide which definitions for words are put in as entries?
**

Here's ChatGPT's response:
**
Good question! Dictionaries don’t just throw in every possible meaning of a word—they follow careful criteria, and the exact process depends on whether it’s a general-use dictionary (like Merriam-Webster or Oxford English Dictionary) or a specialized one. The main criteria are:


1. Evidence of Use (Attestation)

• Lexicographers look at corpus evidence (large databases of real-world texts) to see if a word or meaning is actually used by many speakers or writers.
• A new definition usually needs to appear in multiple independent sources over time, not just in one-off cases.

2. Frequency

• If a meaning shows up often enough in print, online, and spoken usage, it’s more likely to be included. Rare or fleeting uses usually don’t make it in.

3. Breadth of Use

• A definition has to be recognized by a wide enough group of people, not just a single community, unless the dictionary is specialized (like legal or medical dictionaries).

4. Longevity / Staying Power

• Dictionaries don’t want to chase every passing slang trend. They look for persistence: does the usage stick around, or does it vanish after a season?

5. Clear Meaning

• The meaning has to be distinct enough from other senses of the word. If it’s just a tiny nuance, lexicographers may fold it into an existing definition instead of giving it its own entry.

6. Documented Sources

• Traditionally, dictionaries relied on published books, newspapers, and academic texts. Today, they also track social media, blogs, TV transcripts, and other digital sources, but still require verifiable, recordable use.

So in short: a definition gets in if it’s repeatedly attested, broadly and clearly used, and durable enough to matter to readers.


Do you want me to give you an example of how a dictionary added a new sense of an existing word (like mouse → computer device) and how they justified it?
**

 

[Scott]

If you and I define a word, we must both use that same definition or we are in breach and errors result, software doesn't work, bridges collapse, space shuttles explode, one of us is in breach of contract, etc.

Only if we're dealing with things like programming, engineering and the law.

Do you mean to say that it only applies in communication that has bearing on society?

No- I suspect that -all- communication between people has a bearing on society in the long run. The issue here is that when people need to agree on specific definitions of a word, they can certainly do so. The problem is when people want their particular definition/usage/description/sense of a word, to be the one used in a discussion at the expense of their ideological opponent's.

 

[IBDaMann]

False. Here's what I asked ChatGPT just now:

We both already discarded ChatGPT as an erroneous source. If you want to bring it back then you have to accept the ChatGPT output that I posted.

 

[IBDaMann]

I literally -told- you that I didn't see a difference.

You don't get to say that you don't see the difference that I am spelling out for you. You have to show that the difference I specified is, in fact, zero.

Have you ever done this before?

 

[Scott]

If you and I define a word, we must both use that same definition or we are in breach and errors result, software doesn't work, bridges collapse, space shuttles explode, one of us is in breach of contract, etc.

Only if we're dealing with things like programming, engineering and the law. Regular conversations don't have such strict rules.

The less bearing it has on society, the fewer the rules.

Agreed. For the audience, I get into an example where it really -does- matter in the abortion thread I created, here:

Post in thread 'Abortion'

Yesterday at 9:03 AM

If you and I define a word, we must both use that same definition or we are in breach and errors result, software doesn't work, bridges collapse, space shuttles explode, one of us is in breach of contract, etc.

Only if we're dealing with things like programming, engineering and the law. Regular conversations don't have such strict rules.

The less bearing it has on society, the fewer the rules.

Sure. I think it also bears mentioning that in our discussions regarding abortion, agreeing on the meanings/definitions/descriptions/usages of certain words becomes...

• Scott

 

[Scott]

If you and I define a word, we must both use that same definition or we are in breach and errors result, software doesn't work, bridges collapse, space shuttles explode, one of us is in breach of contract, etc.

Only if we're dealing with things like programming, engineering and the law. Regular conversations don't have such strict rules. Generally speaking, this isn't a problem. That being said, it becomes a problem when people have different views on things, such as on whether pregnant women should be allowed to have voluntary abortions. This is when dictionary or encyclopedia definitions -can- be a lifesaver

Not when the dictionary or excyclopedia errors are providing one with the dishonesty necessary to disguise one's indefensible positions.

Here is the core of our problem. We can't agree on the definitions/usages/descriptions of certain words and you also refuse to accept any of the dictionary and encyclopedia definitions I have offered. If this doesn't change, we have effectively reached a dead end on the subjects that deal with these words.

 

[Scott]

If you and I define a word, we must both use that same definition or we are in breach and errors result, software doesn't work, bridges collapse, space shuttles explode, one of us is in breach of contract, etc.

Only if we're dealing with things like programming, engineering and the law. Regular conversations don't have such strict rules. Generally speaking, this isn't a problem. That being said, it becomes a problem when people have different views on things, such as on whether pregnant women should be allowed to have voluntary abortions. This is when dictionary or encyclopedia definitions -can- be a lifesaver, so long as both parties in a debate agree to use definitions found therein.

... which explains why you balk at accepting even obvious and straightforward definitions.

-You- believe they are "obvious and straigihtforward". I have noted that your definitions are not to be found in the dictionary entries I've read.

 

[Scott]

Again with this notion that only one definition can apply to a word in informal conversations.

A word can have various meanings, but once it is defined, it is defined. If that same word is then redefined, it takes on the new definition and shirks the old one.

Do you notice how you are using a different word than I am? I am saying definition, you are saying defined. They don't mean the same thing. We certainly need to agree on the definition of a given word for certain subjects. In other words, we need to agree on how we are defining a given word for a conversation. That doesn't mean that said word can't have other definitions, just that they aren't the ones we're using for said hypothetical conversation.

 

[Scott]

As I've pointed out numerous times now, I don't always agree with what's in Wikipedia articles.

If you are using it as a reference, the question of "agreement" doesn't come into play.

No, it very much does. I sometimes refer to Wikipedia entries I don't agree with, such as its entry on vaccines, to point out what's wrong not just with the Wikipedia entry, but with the mainstream narrative on said issue as a whole.

How do you determine what you are to accept from Wikipedia and what you are to reject?

I determine that based on my knowledge of a given subject.

 

[Scott]

What evidence do you believe I've ignored when it comes to alleged biological viruses?

Whatever you conveniently opted to not "see" [snip]

I think your "whatever" says it all. You seem to simply be assuming that I have ignored evidence.

That is the standing assumption.

At least you're honest about your assumption.

You declare in every other post "I haven't seen any evidence" when there is mountainous evidence.

You have yet to present any in this case.

 

[Scott]

I still remember when you suggested that I might be right concerning the lack of evidence that biological viruses exist. What changed?

How is that relevant [snip]

I'm curious how you went from believing that biological viruses might not exist to assuming that I am ignoring evidence that they do.