Omniscience fallacy. How do you know chickens and cows are highly intelligent?Does a chicken or a cow get their day in court before getting slaughtered for consumption? They are highly intelligent creatures, after all:
Cows: Science Shows They're Bright and Emotional Individuals
Thinking of cows simply as "food products" ignores who they truly are. In fact, science shows they have rich and deep cognitive and emotional lives.www.psychologytoday.com
In that case, I am just as good as any dictionary, actually better because I can recognize and avoid the errors.
To give you an example, some people see 3 + 4 as equaling 7.
As far as I know, nobody of whom I am aware claims that 3 + 4 somehow does not equal 7. not even those who aren't sure how 3 and 4 are formally defined in mathematics.
Nope. They explain common usage. You don't pick up on this very quickly.
Nope. You are compelled to find that any source must be better than the individual who is forcing you to justify your killing supremacy. What you find to be "best" is simply that which facilitates your EVASION.
Yes, you most certainly are. You are deliberately being EVASIVE because you simply will not willingly display your inability to defend your indefensible position. You will EVADE and EVADE until the discussion goes away because you are obviously ashamed to be advocating for contract killings and killing supremacy.
Nope. You are insisting on EVADING, and nothing else. Anyone can tell by noticing:
I don't care that you never stated what can be logically derived from what you have stated.
Bring yourself up to speed. Note my inclusion of "FTFY" (Fixed That For You). Ask Damocles to explain that to you.
You should have. If you had, you would have received Damocles' explanation already as to how that is the acceptable way to "correct" errors in someone's quoting. I recommend you verify this ASAP.
Roll up your sleeves and dig in. Plan on my implementation of that rhetorical device whenever it is the clearest, cleanest and most efficient manner of expressing a point. Everyone can see the "FTFY" and click on the button to instantly see your original quote in its entirety, to see exactly what was "fixed/corrected"
I'm not even going to discuss dictionaries anymore. If you aren't going to support your killing supremacy position, I'll take that as your recognition that your position is indefensible.
We're supposed to be discussing contract killings, but you have done nothing but EVADE the topic like it is the plague.
FTFY. Do you now see how that works?
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.
Your denial is not unexpected.
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.
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"?
For someone who supposedly teaches English, you certainly should understand that one can compare and contrast anything. Let's let this be your first shred of evidence of your Marxism. A standard Marxist tactic is to advocate for evil policies championed by some infamous person, and then shouting "HOW DARE YOU compare me to [said infamous person]". It is the Marxist playbook for advocating for supremacy as you do.
I know you do. It's a source of Marxist supremacist propaganda and so you are obligated to rush to it like Christians rush to the Bible. It is a source of Marxist propaganda and you push it like a pimp, like a recruiter for a cult.
Nope. Nobody can alter any dogma that Wikipedia staff has locked down.
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.
Nope. You stick to erroneous sources that push your supremacy.
Yes, you have every intention of EVADING the topic, i.e. contract killings.
Irrelevant. You introduced the red herring of "intelligence" and AProudLefty introduced the red herring of "sentience", as if those are somehow measured requirements for a living human.
Nope. It would only work if bone flexibility determined one living human's ability to kill another.
It's the correct grammar for what you are trying to express. Perhaps you should try to express something less tortured.