Abortion

[Into the Night]

No, it is simply a rephrasing of what you wrote. It's still your position; I'm just removing the obfuscation from it.

Bingo. EVERYTHING that is being tried by Democrats on abortion is obfuscation. For Scotch, it's so bad he has locked himself in paradox.

Dictionaries are inanimate objects; they (in and of themselves) don't define anything. In fact, their purpose isn't for defining words but is rather for standardizig the spelling and pronunciation of words.

Not because they are inanimate objects, but because that is not their purpose.

Words are defined by people. Every single word in the English language has an origin (usually from French or Latin uses, sometimes from other languages). The meaning of that word is unchanged from when it first entered the English lexicon. No dictionary can change it since that is itself an invalid redefinition. No popularity can change it since that itself is a redefinition.

Some words, like 'real' or 'reality', 'science', and 'religion', 'mathematics', and 'logic', are defined by philosophy. In other words, they depend on philosophy itself (reasoned arguments).

For example, 'real' is defined using a branch of philosophy called 'phenomenology', which itself is a study of how things are perceived. This is why there is no absolute 'real'. Anything that is 'real' is itself based on an observation, itself subject to error and distortion.

Oddly enough, 'religion' follows the same reasoning. 'Religion' itself is based on what is 'real' to an individual.

Science is not defined by phenomenology, since it is not based on how anything is observed, since science is not based on any observations. It is just the theories themselves, using a model and describing a perceived phenomena. Each of theory of science MUST be falsifiable. Examples: F=mA.

Nonscientific theories do NOT need to be falsifiable. If any arguments extend from them, they become religions.
Examples: the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of the Big Bang, the Theory of the Continuum, the Theory of Abiogenesis, the Theory of Creation.

'Mathematics' is just a close set of rules (called axioms) that act like the rules of a game. Change a rule, and you are playing a different game. EVERYTHING in mathematics is locked within these rules, and any proof extending those rules.

'Logic' is the same way. Just a different set of axioms, and a different notation.

It is philosophy that defines what axioms to declare and why.

 

[AProudLefty]

Bingo. EVERYTHING that is being tried by Democrats on abortion is obfuscation. For Scotch, it's so bad he has locked himself in paradox.

Not because they are inanimate objects, but because that is not their purpose.

Words are defined by people. Every single word in the English language has an origin (usually from French or Latin uses, sometimes from other languages). The meaning of that word is unchanged from when it first entered the English lexicon. No dictionary can change it since that is itself an invalid redefinition. No popularity can change it since that itself is a redefinition.

Some words, like 'real' or 'reality', 'science', and 'religion', 'mathematics', and 'logic', are defined by philosophy. In other words, they depend on philosophy itself (reasoned arguments).

For example, 'real' is defined using a branch of philosophy called 'phenomenology', which itself is a study of how things are perceived. This is why there is no absolute 'real'. Anything that is 'real' is itself based on an observation, itself subject to error and distortion.

Oddly enough, 'religion' follows the same reasoning. 'Religion' itself is based on what is 'real' to an individual.

Science is not defined by phenomenology, since it is not based on how anything is observed, since science is not based on any observations. It is just the theories themselves, using a model and describing a perceived phenomena. Each of theory of science MUST be falsifiable. Examples: F=mA.

Nonscientific theories do NOT need to be falsifiable. If any arguments extend from them, they become religions.
Examples: the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of the Big Bang, the Theory of the Continuum, the Theory of Abiogenesis, the Theory of Creation.

'Mathematics' is just a close set of rules (called axioms) that act like the rules of a game. Change a rule, and you are playing a different game. EVERYTHING in mathematics is locked within these rules, and any proof extending those rules.

'Logic' is the same way. Just a different set of axioms, and a different notation.

It is philosophy that defines what axioms to declare and why.

Random shuffle fallacy.

Roll em dice!

 

[Into the Night]

Indeed he can.

Dictionaries are not "holy" or "authoritative" sources for word definitions, yet you keep insisting upon treating them as such. In fact, dictionaries will often-enough contradict each other, so which one is the "holy" one and why?

Exactly. A redefinition fallacy is STILL a fallacy even if the redefinition appears in a dictionary or becomes a popularly used one.

^^ Leftist "hivemind" language. ^^
A "guide" isn't necessary.

I call it Liberal. It isn't English, but it kinda looks like it. In Liberal, however, words have no meaning (buzzwords) or shifting meaning (redefinitions).

I doubt you can deny that human sperms and eggs lack a heartbeat and lack a complete set of DNA (having only 23 chromosomes instead of 46).

He is still locked in paradox on this.

 

[Into the Night]

An unsubstantiated one.



Another unsubstantiated assertion.

You can't answer any question that way! Answer the questions put to you.