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

[Into the Night]

No, you're doing the exact opposite of avoiding the errors here, you are introducing them and really just highlighting why dictionaries and encyclopedias are so important. I get into these errors below.

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

No, we agree on math.

No, you don't. You deny mathematics as well.

It's your definitions of words like abortion where we disagree.

Not his definition. You do NOT get to redefine words..

Again, we agree on math.

Lie. You don't.

It's your definition of certain words that's the problem. Thus, my insistence that we use dictionaries and encyclopedias to try to find agreement on the definitions of certain words.

Dictionaries to not define any word.
Encyclopedias do not define any word.
False authority fallacies. Repetition fallacy (chanting).

 

[Into the Night]

Tell me, how would -you- describe the definition(s) of a word?

Nonsense question. Go learn English.

 

[Into the Night]

Well, I tried to find common ground for word definitions with you, but I think at this point it's become a lost cause.

You never did. You are preaching. You are grabbing any kind of false authority you can think of.

 

[Into the Night]

I suspect we're not going to come to an agreement here.

Obviously. You don't know the language.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, I suspect we're not going to come to an agreement here.

Because you insist on false authorities.

If you find a definition or usage of the word abortion in a dictionary that you can accept, let me know- I can then take a look at it and see if I can also accept it.

RQAA.

Abortion is the taking of a human life. It is a contract killing. When done for convenience, it is murder.

 

[Into the Night]

There are definitely rules in this forum. They're even posted here:

Thread 'Rules of the Board!'

Jul 22, 2006

This site uses user driven content, each user is responsible for the content and opinions in their posts. The owners of the site JPPolitics LLC do not necessarily share the opinions of the author of any post on the forums. This forum was created for Political commentary, News, Education, and entertainment purposes. Please read the rules carefully before posting on the forums.

General Forum Rules
(These rules apply to the entire site)

1. No posting private information without consent. We will delete the posts and you will likely not have access for at least a couple...

• Generic
• Replies: 0
• Forum: Rules

That being said, posting a set of rules is not the same thing as enforcing them. Things get especially complicated when the rules are ambiguous. This is why I reported one of IBDaMann's posts- to try to get some clarity on whether or not JPP Admins consider IBDaMann's quote box altering qualifies as quote box altering under Rule 16.

It doesn't. Go talk to Damocles about it.

 

[Into the Night]

They are listed but not actually enforced anymore.

Yes they are, 12b. You were banned for awhile, remember???

 

[Into the Night]

I'd say that almost everyone, if not everyone, tends to stick to sources that they find to be reliable.

A false authority is not a valid source.

I think we could agree that not everyone's sources -are- reliable- if they were, I doubt that we'd have the heated disagreements that we have in this forum.

A false authority is not a valid source.

I think the key to constructive debates is to try to understand why we disagree with each other. A lot of time, that involves delving into each other's sources of information and from there, making arguments as to why those sources are biased and/or authorative.

The ONLY authoritative meaning of any word is the etymology of that word. You CANNOT redefine a word at your convenience. Go learn English.

 

[domer76]

How'd it go?

Not yet.

 

[IBDaMann]

I put Scott on Ignore. The second half of this thread is now invisible. Just goes to show that he clogs up the internet with bullshit.

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.

You both have got to be kidding me. You can't possibly find @Scott to be so threatening that you can't bear to face his differing view. I can understand you not being able to withstand conservative viewpoints that don't absolutely HATE humanity and everything good in life, thus forcing you to put conservatives on "IGNORE", but @Scott? Are you truly unable to process any differing view without going into an unhinged meltdown?

 

[Scott]

When logic has been replaced by vitriol, we get to a place that I think Nietsche best described:
“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.”

Source:

"He Who Fights with Monsters" Meaning

Friedrich Nietzsche's haunting observation that "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an a

unearnedwisdom.com

I get it. I like swimming in the abyss; the water is ice cold, just how I like it. Yes, I actually do prefer wading in a the peaceful, warm waters of a caribbean beach, but I'll go down with the Titanic as well.

I'll drop you a line from the abyss and keep you posted on how the debris is scattering.

Your bit about the titanic got me thinking of ways to go. Tyrian's response to a bandit leader still makes me smile . It's here if you're interested:

Shagga: How would you like to die, Tyrion son of Tywin?Tyrion Lannister: In my own bed at the age of 80, with a bellyful of wine and a girl's mouth around my cock!

A great memorable quote from the Game of Thrones, Season 1 show on Quotes.net

www.quotes.net

Incidentally, there's a youtube video that references this scene near the start on how to influence people that I thought was great. That's here:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NQiHtbpa8s

 

[Scott]

There you go with your "Marxism" again.

Get used to it. Marxism is global and entrenched. Much of it is behind the various supreacies that you support. It's not my problem if I am the first person to enlighten you to this.

Preaching is easy. Providing evidence frequently isn't.

I haven't seen you provide a shred of evidence that Wikipedia is marxist

What good would it serve to provide you with a shred of evidence? Better question: How long would it take for you to declare "I haven't seen any evidence"?

You can't see evidence, remember?

The main issue comes down to what we each consider to be evidence for a given position. You may consider some piece of information to be solid evidence for a given position, while I may not. They key is trying to understand why people see or don't see a given piece of information to be solid evidence for a given position. But first, we both need to see the information in question. We haven't gotten to that stage yet.

I haven't seen you provide a shred of evidence that Wikipedia is marxist or that it can be compared in any way to drug pushers or pimps.

For someone who supposedly teaches English, you certainly should understand that one can compare and contrast anything.

Sure. I'm simply pointing out that you haven't provided a shred of evidence that Wikipedia in any way resembles drug pushers or pimps.

Wikipedia certainly has its flaws, but at least it always lists sources for its material. Many mainstream news publications don't.

Unfortunately, it lists nonauthoritative sources for those as well.

Sometimes, sure, but then those can be debunked.

Not by dishonest people who are pushing those errors.

Agreed. Fortunatetly, there are honest people who can do the debunking.

Nope. Nobody can alter any dogma that Wikipedia staff has locked down.

I'm not talking about editing Wikipedia itself, I'm talking about the discussions we have here about it. We can certainly criticize Wikipedia passages that we find to be untruthful in online forums. I've certainly done this in the past.

 

[Scott]

And as mentioned, at least they list their sources.

How does that change anything?

It's the difference between someone telling you to trust that their beliefs are correct and someone telling you why they believe what they believe.

Incorrect. Honest people, such as myself, explain unambiguously how they are correct and show how one can verify. Dishonest people, on the other hand, simply provide links to error-filled websites that simply parrot the dishonesty, as if being on the internet somehow transforms dishonesty into absolute truth.

If Wikipedia's sources in a particular article are bad, they can frequently be shown to be bad. I've done this in the past. The point is, at least they have sources that we can take a look at. Many mainstream publications don't even list their sources, meaning you frequently can't even figure out where they got their information from.

 

[Scott]

I tend to stick to sources that I find are fairly reliable.

Nope. You stick to erroneous sources [snip]

Even by your own standards, this isn't true. We don't -always- disagree on subjects. Our views on the covid vaccines, for example, seem to be fairly similar. I know you dislike Wikipedia, but Wikipedia certainly isn't my only source of information. Not only that, but on some subjects, such as vaccines, I'm generally not a fan of Wikipedia's information and so I tend to use other sources for that subject.

 

[Scott]

The one thing we can agree on is that dictionaries don't -define- words. They simply say how words -are- defined.

They do not get to. Nobody does.

They simply say how words -are- used.

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

 

[Scott]

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

Irrelevant.

Not to me, and, I suspect, not to many others as well. At the heart of this is what we should value. I believe that a being's intelligence is more important then what species the being belongs to.

 

[Scott]

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

I already have, several times.

Link to one such occassion then.

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

There's your blind eye again.

No, though the issue of perspective is certainly important here. We clearly have different points of view here. I think it's safe to say that we don't fully understand each other here. I don't see why you think there is evidence of people being dishonest here and you seem to think that the evidence is plain to see. I think that trying to understand why we have such different perspectives here might be worth looking into, but for that, we'd first need to see what you consider to be evidence for your position here.

 

[Scott]

Which means U.S. Citizens have the ability to vote with their feet as to what laws they want to live under.

Teachable moment: "... as to what laws under which they want to live."

That phrase sounds tortured.

It's the correct grammar for what you are trying to express.

I have my doubts -.-

 

[Scott]

Go learn what 'shill' means.

The word has multiple definitions.

Only one.

No, it has at least 4 definitions as a noun, more if you count its uses as a verb:

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

All the words

www.wordnik.com

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.

I can believe that this may well have been what the term meant originally. Based on the dictionary definitions above, however, it appears that this definition has become sidelined by other definitions of the term.

 

[Scott]

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.

No, I wish for the opposite here, clarity. That's not always easy to accomplish, however.