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

[Into the Night]

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

Irrational. You are now locked in another paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

Actually, I have. When that happens, I wipe the floor with the lot of them. If memory serves, I did this not too long ago in regards to the Ukraine war in another forum.

Assumption of victory fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Honestly, I don't really pay attention to whether a mainstream source, particularly the 'big 5' as Wikipedia calls them, are left or right. I just think that, generally speaking, their news isn't worth looking at that much. I do like some of the comedians sometimes though.

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

 

[Into the Night]

Agreed.

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

 

[Into the Night]

Not true.

Lie. You are rejecting set theory.

 

[Into the Night]

Not true. I believe the primary source I tried to find common ground in when it came to a definition for abortion was actually dictionaries.

False authority fallacy. No dictionary defines any word.

Feel free to try to find a definition for abortion in the following online dictionary that you like and I'll see if I would agree:

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

All the words

www.wordnik.com

False authority fallacy. No website defines any word.

Or look for any online dictionary's definition and I can see if I'd agree to the one you find and like, assuming you're able to.

False authority fallacy. Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to quote every dictionary or website. No dictionary or website defines any word.

 

[Into the Night]

I certainly think that some of our conversations have been productive, but that doesn't mean that I trust that you always have the right answer or even know where the right answer may be found. I believe we do agree on some subjects, however, such as how math and set theory works, as well as the harms of the covid vaccines.

You don't get to deny math or logic and agree with it at the same time. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox!

 

[Into the Night]

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

RQAA

 

[Into the Night]

Damocles made the assertion that all the articles I refer to refer back to 3 books and 3 articles. I simply pointed out that I have no idea where he got that idea. If Damocles wants to argue that he meant it as some kind of parable, he can certainly do so.

Random phrase. No apparent coherency. Damocles was pointing out your circular arguments.

 

[Into the Night]

It is, in fact, impossible to accomplish if you refuse to think it through and instead opt to just go with whatever Wikipedia tells you to believe.

He argued for ambiguity. Then he tries to deny his own argument. He is still locked in this paradox, and his continue evasions won't clear it.

 

[Into the Night]

I was referring to you. It's easy to preach things like "Marxis is global and entrenched". What's generally much harder is to provide evidence for one's assertions.

Marxism. It is global and entrenched. It is not preaching. It history, which you deny.

 

[Into the Night]

Do you have any evidence that I have denied math?

RQAA. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

 

[Into the Night]

You're certainly practicing it. To recap for the audience- IBDaMann stated that "Wikipedia gives people a place to get indoctrinated into hardcore Marxism". To date, he has provided no evidence for this assertion.

Lie.

 

[Into the Night]

I wasn't. I was talking about the fact that when there are passages in Wikipedia on a given subject that contain false information, honest people who are knowledgeable on said subject can point these out.

Evasion. You cannot use Wikipedia as a source. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[Scott]

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,

I reject Wikipedia as a source.

Yes, I know. I and others don't though, at least at times.

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.

If I were you, I wouldn't be focused on expanding the quantity of sources that do my thinking for me, but would instead be focused on eliminating such.

I do plenty of my own thinking. However, we need information to think about. That's what sources of information are for.

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.

Who does your thinking on vaccines?

I'm not sure if there's a subject where I -don't- do my own thinking. The issue, as I stated previously, is that we need information to think about. As to sources of information that I trust in regards to vaccines, the highest levels of trust would go to a select few of those who no longer believe in biological viruses, such as Mike Stone and other signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" 2 page statment. For the audience, this statement can be found in some threads I've started, such as this one:

Thread 'Settling the Biological Virus Debate'

Dec 23, 2022

For a while, I've been debating with a certain someone in another thread regarding whether or not biological viruses are real. The thread has gotten rather large and we've been talking about several things in it. I think it makes more sense to separate the discussion on viruses into a thread of its own and will attempt to respond to posts on the subject in other thread here as well.

For those who are unfamiliar with the group of doctors and other professionals who have come to the conclusion that biological viruses aren't real, I invite you to take a look at the following 2 page statement...

• Scott
• Replies: 1,326
• Forum: General Politics Forum

Following them, I'd go for sources like Children's Health Defense, which was apparently founded in large part by parents whose children were injured or even killed by vaccines.

 

[Scott]

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

It is, in fact, impossible to accomplish if you refuse to think it through and instead opt to just go with whatever Wikipedia tells you to believe.

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

 

[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.

There is a huge difference.

A definition is unique and must be forthwith adhered.

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.

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.

If you have two dictionaries and the description of the usage of a given word differs, in any way, to any extent, between the two dictionaries, you clearly don't have definitions. Period.

I strongly disagree. The issue is what I've already stated- when it comes to informal conversations, people can and do have multiple definitions for the same words. Dictionaries reflect that, but with the important caveat that they only focus on relatively common definitions. Bottom line- so long as people can agree on a given definition in conversations where having the same definition matters, discussions where people disagree can continue. As soon as people -can't- agree on the definition of a word, the discussion flounders.

You can describe word usage in many ways, but you need authority to define a word, to assign its definition.

Again with this notion that only one definition can apply to a word in informal conversations. This simply isn't the case. This conversation got me thinking of something, however, which is that the law has definitions for words too. I decided to take a look on the legal definition(s) for abortion. Turns out, there's more than one:
**

Key Takeaways​

• While medicine defines abortion as a pregnancy ended through either natural or medical means, there is no one legal definition of abortion.
• States with strict abortion laws commonly exclude certain situations (e.g., miscarriages) from their definitions of abortion, thereby turning what might otherwise be illegal into a permissible procedure under the circumstances.
• State abortion exclusions are inconsistently adopted and inconsistently applied, so legal help may be necessary.

**

Source:

https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/family-law/reproductive-rights/what-is-abortion-in-legal-terms.html

 

[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.

Great. You can have a conversation with yourself on the matter.

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.

 

[Scott]

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.

I believe you should value human life

I do, but not all human lives are equal in intelligence. I think that most if not all pregnant women are vastly more intelligent than the fetuses they carry. For me, this is a strong reason as to why I believe that said pregnant women should be allowed to terminate their pregnancies.

 

[IBDaMann]

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.