Scott
Verified User
I strongly doubt it, but if you want to try to persuade me, by all means give it a go.
Florida plans to become first state to eliminate all childhood vaccine mandates
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
I strongly doubt it, but if you want to try to persuade me, by all means give it a go.
Scott
Verified User
A few points here:
1- You didn't ask me my position on contract killings. You had already jumped to the false conclusion that I thought they were "OK" in your post #751. Your question had been -why- I thought they were ok.
2- Initially, I thought you were saying that abortions -were- contract killings. This is why, in my initial response to your post #751, that is, in my post #764, I didn't deny your false assumption that I thought that contract were ok and instead brought up how important it was for people to agree on what words meant if there was to be any hope at a constructive discussion. I then quoted 2 dictionary definitions of abortion, along with a link to the online dictionary listing as well.
It was only after reading your response to my post #764, that being your post #771, that I realized that you had actually switched the subject of discussion from abortions to contract killings. This is why I said the following in my response to your post #771, that being my post #795:
**
Wait a second- we -were- discussing abortions. What do you think we're discussing?
**
Scott
Verified User
I reject Wikipedia at all times.However, I'm still not sure if you agree to define the term as Wikipedia does. In case you'd like to see Wikipedia's definition, it's here:
Contract killing - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Oh boy -.-
When I type "contract killing" into duckduckgo, the very first link that comes up after the ads is Wikipedia's page on contract killing. Perhaps that doesn't qualify as "authoritative", but it's certainly convenient to just post content from the first non ad link I see. But I tell you what, if you want to use a different source that you believe is more authorative, quote and link to it, and I'll consider using that definition instead. Alternatively, you could go for the third non add link I found on duckduckgo, which is the legal definition of contract killing:
Contract Killing: Understanding Its Legal Implications | US Legal Forms
Discover the legal definition of Contract Killing, its implications, and why such agreements are considered illegal. Learn more about this serious crime.
legal-resources.uslegalforms.com
Scott
Verified User
I watched how our conversation evolved above, from my starting it off by saying "I think I've made some progress with my efforts to avoid insulting posters and their beliefs" to the conversation now being about making honest points. I'm all for making honest points. I just believe we should try hard to avoid insulting posters and their beliefs with crass insults. We've gone over this terrain before- you say that you don't insult people until they insult you and then you return fire and I say that even when insulted, I refrain from returning fire (because it's insults, not actual bullets) and instead focus on how the insults are damaging any chances of productive discussion.
Scott
Verified User
Debateable, but they certainly offer word definitions. I asked you if we could agree on a particular definition from a particular dictionary. Are you saying you don't agree with it?
Alright, so your definition of science is that it is a set of falsifiable theories. I think I can work with that.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Stop. I'm not buying your diversions and pivots. There's no need for you to be researching common knowledge. I gave you a defintion, either use that or admit that you fully intend to EVADE until the cows come home.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. Diversion.
I asked you a question. Answer the question. There was no evolution, only EVASION.
Let's start over. We will start at this moment in time, with no evolution of anything to be considered.
Why do you approve of contract killings, i.e. the subset of "killing of living humans" in which a customer hires a killer to kill one or more third-party living humans?
There. You don't need to look up anything. You are free to just answer the question as stated.
Scott
Verified User
I decided to ask duckduckgo whether dictionaries define words. Here's duckduckgo's search assist response:
**
Dictionaries do not create words; they document how words are used in language by providing definitions based on common usage. They reflect the meanings and uses of words as they are understood by speakers of the language.
**
Here are its citations it used for reaching this conclusion:
What a dictionary is and isn’t, from this editor’s point of view
I’m not a lexicographer, but I know several from Twitter. That’s my disclaimer. What I’m writing here is taken from English-language dictionaries themselves (did you know the prin…
grammargeddon.com
Dictionary - Wikipedia
Would you agree to this?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
That is part of the definition. They are falsifiable theories that predict nature. If a model/theory doesn't predict nature, it isn't science.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Dismissed. False authority fallacy. Stick with authoritative sources.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Leave AProudLefty out of our discussion, unless you plan on adopting his dishonesty and lack of credibility as your own.
You approve of a proper subset of contract killings. You have no wiggle room. I get it; you are struggling to get out of the hole which you have dug for yourself in the corner into which you have backed yourself. It is entirely your fault for allowing yourself to be goverened by supremacist ideologies without ever calling booooolsch't. You let other people do your thinking for you, and thus you never thought anything through. You never applied critical reasoning to arrive at correct answers; you simply adopted the supremacist argument without question. Now you are totally unable to support your indefensible positions.
* You demand supremacy for all people who are not straight, and where you don't get your way, you cry VICTIMHOOD!
* You demand supremacy for a certain group of people to be able to kill other likving humans without their consent, and where you don't get your way, you cry VICTIMHOOD!
I'm willing to bet that there are other examples of supremacy for which you advocate, but at the moment, we are discussing your advocacy for supremacy in killing living humans.
You have declared your support for a subset of contract killings. You don't get to deny this. You are currently being too cowardly to explain why you hold the position that you hold, and the presumption is that you are too cowardly to explain your position because all supremacists are cowards.
Have I missed anything or are we effectively done on this topic for now?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Convenient, but your own ignorance of logic and math does not alter reality in any way. You do not transform into being correct simply by denying those parts of reality that run counter to your supremacist ideologies.
Only you can persuade you. You clearly do not wish to learn the knowledge that would change your mind because that would result in you changing your mind. Here you have people who are trying to help you, to teach you for free, and you are not only not appreciative, you flee in fear.
I pointed you in the direction of set theory. Learn it, or don't.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Yes. You approve of contract killings. You stated your approval of a subset of contract killings so that issue is closed. I pointed out that you approve of contract killings and asked you to explain why you approve of them.
You remain EVASIVE.
As I have indicated elsewhere, I already know why you are being EVASIVE, i.e. you are too cowardly to admit to your supremacist ideologies.
I already know the answer, i.e. because you allowed others to do your thinking for you, they convinced you that you were a VICTIM! because you were being denied your supremacy, and you never called boooooolsch't. Nonetheless, I offered you an opportunity to explain your justification for contract killings.
https://www.aap.org/en/news-room/fa...d-vaccines-safe-and-effect-no-link-to-autism/ The shots have nothing to do with autism.
Into the Night
Verified User
Yes you did. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!
You do.
Abortions are contract killings.
Into the Night
Verified User
No dictionary defines any word.
Do you know the ramifications of that simple statement?
Into the Night
Verified User
DuckDuckGo does not define any word (other than DuckDuckGo). No dictionary defines any word.I decided to ask duckduckgo whether dictionaries define words. Here's duckduckgo's search assist response:
**
Dictionaries do not create words; they document how words are used in language by providing definitions based on common usage. They reflect the meanings and uses of words as they are understood by speakers of the language.
**
Here are its citations it used for reaching this conclusion:
What a dictionary is and isn’t, from this editor’s point of view
I’m not a lexicographer, but I know several from Twitter. That’s my disclaimer. What I’m writing here is taken from English-language dictionaries themselves (did you know the prin…
Dictionary - Wikipedia
Would you agree to this?
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
I do not see him evading.
I also do not see you quoting him saying that contract killing was OK.
You're grasping at straws. It's embarrassing.
Into the Night
Verified User
A theory is merely an explanatory argument. It doesn't predict anything. The power of prediction comes from mathematics, where the formal proof exists.