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

[Into the Night]

I tend to stick to sources that I find are fairly reliable. Those sources usually link to material that -they- find reliable. I find Wikipedia to be good on some subjects, not on others, so I tend to use it only on subjects where I find it to be good.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Wikipedia is not a source. There is no way you can justify it as a source.

 

[Into the Night]

What I'm trying to convey is that I disagree with you here and I suspect that this won't change.

Denial of logic. You can't erase your fallacy by denying it.

 

[Into the Night]

No.

So you admit to a strawman fallacy.

The articles I linked to provide evidence that chickens and cows are highly intelligent.

Obviously, you have never raised chickens or cows.
Strawman fallacy.

That would work only if people valued bone flexibility over intelligence. I think it's reasonable to assume that this isn't the case.

Random words. No apparent coherency. Try learning English.

 

[Into the Night]

If you like, you can try to explain what you mean by supremacy in this context.

He already did. RQAA (Repetitive Question Already Answered).

I haven't seen you present evidence that anyone is being dishonest here.

He already has. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Without examples, your assertion lacks evidence.

Evidence has already been provided. RQAA.

SCOTUS affirmed the opposite not too long ago in Roe vs. Wade, but I've heard the argument that Roe vs. Wade got it wrong in regards to what the constitution said and think this argument may be right. This isn't getting into what -should- be in the constitution, just what is actually in it.

NOTHING in the Constitution of the United States authorizes contract murder for convenience.
DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION YOU DESPISE!

That phrase sounds tortured.

It's YOUR PHRASE, moron.

Glad we agree here.

Strawman fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

If you'd read what I wrote to the end, I think you would have been satisfied with what I said.

Assumption of victory fallacy.

I'll repeat it in the hopes that you read it to the end this time around:

Repetition fallacy (chanting).

ChatGPT has said both that dictionaries do definitions and that they don't- clearly it all depends on the questions it's asked. The one thing we can agree on is that dictionaries don't -define- words. They simply say how words -are- defined. In other words, common definitions of words that people have come up with.

You are already locked in this paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

 

[IBDaMann]

Sure you do. You can create a word anytime you like and define it.

Yes. I was speaking within the context of prescriptively defining words for others, and declaring them incorrect if they deviate from my definition.

This kind of thing happens all the time.

Absolutely. I create terms all the time. "warmizombies," "climate lemmings" and others all have defintiions.

His problem is trying to REDEFINE existing words. Most techo-jargon starts this way.

Correct. That is the standard Marxist tactic, with "Climate" being the poster child of hijacked words.

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

Spot on. Guess who doesn't do this.

 

[IBDaMann]

True Scotsman fallacy.

Good call. That's exactly what it is.

 

[Diesel]

Yep. He’s right on the edge. I have one reply of his to look at. It may well be the one that makes him invisible.

How'd it go?