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

[Into the Night]

The word has multiple definitions. One you're familiar with:

Only one.

**
One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.

Redefinition fallacy. Not what a 'shill' is.

One you're not familiar with:
**
A person paid to endorse a product favourably, while pretending to be impartial.

Rederfinition fallacy. Not what a 'shill' is.

The article I linked to was using it in the above manner.

False authority fallacy. Redefinition fallacy.

The definitions above can be found here:

shill — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

False authority fallacy. Redefinition fallacy.

A shill has only one definition. It is a legitimate job. A shill typically appears in poker rooms.
Their job is to occupy a seat to get a game started (nine players don't just walk up and play poker in a casino).
Once live players show up, the shill leaves the game. One or two seats are always left open for new live players to sit in.

Shills play with their own money. They're usually middling poker players, but they play like 'rocks' (a poker term for a player that doesn't bet much and folds most (typically around 95%) of the time.

This is the only meaning of a shill. It has nothing to do with swindles, and nothing to do with cheating.

Someday you should really learn English.

 

[Into the Night]

They have a fair amount of influence. From the article I linked to:

They have no say.

 

[Into the Night]

Many words -.- I think a lot of what you say is reasonable when not applied to specific issues (abortions) or people (ThatOwlWoman).

So you crave ambiguity.

 

[Into the Night]

When it comes to abortions, this clearly isn't just about the mother and the person performing the abortion.

Correct. It's also about the child being murdered.

It's also about society as a whole. A large chunk of people in North America believe that the mother's wishes are more important than the fetus' life. I know there is also a large chunk of people who don't believe this, which is why the U.S. has various states that allow abortions and various states that don't.

Democrats are not society as a whole.

You snipped off the second part of my sentence, which was rather important. The complete sentence for anyone in the audience:
**
No one is suggesting that anyone should have the right to kill a living human -after- it is born, but it is sobering to think that even a little after humans are born, they are not exactly geniuses in the world of animals.
**

Killing a living human for convenience is murder, whether it is born or not. Abortions are contract killings.

Ofcourse, we are humans, so it stands to reason. No one here is advocating allowing human flesh to be eaten,

Are you forgetting Donner's Pass? Are you forgetting about tribal cannablism?

though I think people who are starving should be able to eat dead human flesh if there's nothing else (I'm thinking of the story documented in the film "Alive"). What a lot of people -do- believe, however, is that if a mother doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term, she should be allowed to terminate said pregnancy.

Yes. A lot of people believe that contract murder is legitimate. They are Democrats.

 

[Into the Night]

Sorry, dude, not a conspiracy theorist.

The Democrat party is a conspiracy. It is no theory.

I just roll with the science.

You deny theories of science, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't get to define any words, nor does anyone.

Sure you do. You can create a word anytime you like and define it. This kind of thing happens all the time.
His problem is trying to REDEFINE existing words. Most techo-jargon starts this way.

Of course, you must provide a definition of your new word if you intend to use it in a conversation.

 

[Into the Night]

Did you just basically say that you can teach English to others, but if you make an error, it is, by definition, not big enough of a deal for you to learn and to improve such that you never make that mistake again?

Is that what I just read?

It is obvious he doesn't know English. He only knows Liberal.

 

[Into the Night]

Dishonest. Just say it's describing a thing.

A science model specifically models a prediction of nature. You can't give me an example of any science model that doesn't.

I'm not trying to.

 

[Into the Night]

You are engaging in a standard fallacy called a "Special Pleading" fallacy.

Good call. That's exactly what it is.

 

[Into the Night]

Lol . We have different ideas as to what true science shows when it comes to vaccines, but that's fine. We agree on other things.

True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Sure, but I also think that people can generally agree on definitions if they're found in dictionaries.

Dictionaries do not define any word. False authority fallacy. Repetition fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

No, I don't. Again, the problem with your assertion is that you are using the word killer. I believe that a woman should be allowed to choose someone to help them end their pregnancy if said woman decides it would be better for her well being. It may also be one of the best way to decrease the millions of child deaths per year:

Child mortality and causes of death

<strong style="background-color:transparent;font-size:16px;text-align:inherit;text-transform:inherit;white-space:inherit;word-spacing:normal;caret-color:auto;"></strong><p>Substantial global progress has been made in reducing childhood mortality since 1990. The total number of under-5 deaths...

www.who.int

So murdering a child is the best way to decrease child deaths????

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

Why do you condone murder?

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, and people tend to disagree the most on definitions when they're personal ones instead of common ones that can be found in dictionaries.

No dictionary defines any word. False authority fallacy. Repetition fallacy (chanting).

 

[Into the Night]

Have you ever considered that it's convenient for your beliefs that you -do- see a difference?

A definition is not a 'belief' or a religion.

Sure you could. You could say that you have defined a Chilango as someone who is black.

Not the meaning of 'chilango'.

I could tell you that that's not how it's generally defined, but you could say you don't care and insist that that's the way -you- define it. It would be a mess in terms of trying to have a discussion with you on chilangos though

He is not defining 'chilango'. YOU are attempting to REDEFINE it!

This is what you're attempting to do with abortion. You are averse to using definitions for abortion found in dictionaries precisely because that's not how you yourself define the term.

Abortion is the taking of a human life. It is typically la contract killing. When done for convenience, it is murder. He has not redefined ANYTHING. YOU have! You cannot blame your problems on anybody else! Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

When it's clear that logic has no home in a conversation, it's best to throw in the towel.

Denying logic won't work. A fallacy is an invalid argument.

 

[Into the Night]

No, just that it's not that big of a deal. That doesn't mean I can't improve.

You have to learn English first.

 

[Into the Night]

You telling me that something is marxist doesn't make it so.

Denying the teachings of Karl Marx won't work. You are a Marxist.

I've taken a look at Wikipedia's protections. All protection levels are still editable by Admins at least. See for yourself if you like:

Wikipedia:Protection policy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

False authority fallacy. Wikipedia is not a source.

Illiteracy: Proper nouns are always capitalized.

 

[Into the Night]

I've already mentioned that I don't agree with some of Wikipedia's stances on certain subjects, such as vaccines. That being said, Wikipedia offers people places to start on just about any subject and, generally speaking, I think they have good information on their site.

Wikipedia is not a source. You cannot use it as a source. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Sometimes, sure, but then those can be debunked. And as mentioned, at least they list their sources.

Biased and non-authoritative 'sources'. Wikipedia is not a source. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Many mainstream publications don't even offer their readers that common courtesy.

Define 'mainstream publication'. Who decides whether a publication is 'mainstream'? You? Me?

Buzzword fallacy. Populist fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I think we may need to agree to disagree on this one.

You can't erase your fallacy by denying it! YOU made the fallacy. Only YOU can correct it!

 

[Into the Night]

We just see things differently. As you know, I have some positions on the left as well as some on the right. So when it comes to Trump's policies on immigration or abortion, I'm pretty sure I'm on her side. Thus, I am sometimes on her good side.

Why do condone murder?