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?

 

[Scott]

No, I don't believe that dictionaries "own the language". I -do- believe that they offer common definitions for words, which can be very useful when trying to talk about things where people have a penchant for using non common definitions for words.

In that case, I am just as good as any dictionary, actually better because I can recognize and avoid the errors.

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.

To give you an example, some people see abortion as murder or a proper subset of contract killings.

To give you an example, some people see 3 + 4 as equaling 7.

No, we agree on math. It's your definitions of words like abortion where we disagree.

As far as I know, no well known dictionary defines abortion as murder.

As far as I know, nobody of whom I am aware claims that 3 + 4 somehow does not equal 7.

Again, we agree on math. 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.

 

[Scott]

I think we have agreed that any good discussion requires that people agree on the definition of the words being used in said discussion. Dictionaries and encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia, offer common definitions for words.

Nope. They explain common usage.

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

 

[Scott]

I think we have agreed that any good discussion requires that people agree on the definition of the words being used in said discussion. Dictionaries and encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia, offer common definitions for words. This is why I find that they are the best sources when it comes to trying to find an agreement on the definitions of words used in a discussion.

Nope. You are compelled to find that any source must be better than the individual who is forcing you to justify your killing supremacy.

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

 

[Scott]

You could say that you have defined a Chilango as someone who is black. I could tell you that that's not how it's generally defined, but you could say you don't care and insist that that's the way -you- define it.

You are arguing that I could do what you are, in fact doing right now.

No, I'm not.

Yes, you most certainly are.

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

 

[Scott]

I am insisting that we use common definitions for words.

Nope.

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

 

[Scott]

I never said that I support "supremacy", let alone "killing supremacy".

I don't care that you never stated what can be logically derived from what you have stated.

Can you provide evidence for your assertion?

 

[Scott]

Another thing, in the last post, you engaged in quote box altering of the text of mine that I quoted above by adding some text in brackets that I didn't put in myself, which is in violation of Rule 16. Feel free to peruse Rule 16 yourself if you are in doubt:

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

I didn't report it [snip]

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.

I reported a post you made later on that did the same thing. So far, no response from Damocles or any other Admin.

 

[鬼百合]

I reported a post you made later on that did the same thing. So far, no response from Damocles or any other Admin.

There are no rules in this forum.

 

[Scott]

In any case, it appears that you agree that you are averse to using defintions for abortion found in dictionaries and encyclopedias such as Wikipedia.

I'm not even going to discuss dictionaries anymore.

I'm saddened to hear that. It bolsters my suspicion that we're not going to be able to come to an agreement on a definition for abortion.

 

[Scott]

Another thing, in the last post, you engaged in quote box altering of the text of mine that I quoted above by adding some text in brackets that I didn't put in myself, which is in violation of Rule 16. Feel free to peruse Rule 16 yourself if you are in doubt:

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

I didn't report it [snip]

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.

I reported a post you made later on that did the same thing. So far, no response from Damocles or any other Admin.

There are no rules in this forum.

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.

 

[鬼百合]

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.

They are listed but not actually enforced anymore.