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

[Scott]

Yes, different dictionaries certainly aren't identical,

Ergo, avoid the words "define" and "definition."

I strongly disagree. Here's the first definition from the American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition's of the word definition:
**

• noun A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.

**

Source:

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

All the words

www.wordnik.com

Now all you have to do is verify that all other dictionaries have that same identical definition and you're golden.

I think you're getting something mixed up. I'm not saying that any single dictionary's definition of a word are sacrosanct or that other dictionaries will have identical definitions. I'm saying that if a well known dictionary says that dictionaries give definitions for words, it's likely that a lot of people believe this is true, at least around the time that a given word in said dictionary was published.

 

[domer76]

I would classify a study as scientific study if it follows the scientific method. I certainly believe that a lot of studies, particularly in the field of virology, are not scientific, regardless of whether or not they claim to be.

What are your credentials to evaluate that?

 

[Scott]

There are 2 issues here: the first was your intent and the second was my interpretation. Way back in post #721, I responded to a post from anonymoose, which was itself a response to a post of yours that I think was clearly about abortions. You then decided to respond to my post #721 in post #751 by starting off with the following:
**
... or you could hazard an answer.

Why do you think contract killings are OK?

[ for purposes of discussion, a "contract killing" is defined as the killing of living human A by living human B who was paid by living human C for his "unaliving" services. Furthermore, living human A does not get a say in the matter, the killing fee is negotiated between humans B and C, and the entire matter is human C's choice. ]
**

I thought it was clear that you were defining abortions as contract killings, because I certainly hadn't been talking about contract killings with anonymoose.

Nope. I was explicitly discussing "contract killings", a subset of "killing living humans" and what happens to be the superset of "abortion."

We don't agree that abortions are a subset of contract killings.

 

[IBDaMann]

You've defined what you believe science is in another post. As I said in that post, I may be able to work with that.

Outstanding.

From duckduckgo search assist:
**
A study is considered scientific if it systematically collects and evaluates data using the scientific method, which includes formulating a testable hypothesis, conducting experiments, and analyzing results to draw conclusions. It must also be based on empirical evidence and be capable of being replicated by others.
**

There are some problems with this.

1. The scientific method is not a method for data collection. Data collection, in each case, is governed by its data collection plan which, in turn, is (or should be) governed by the application of statistical math to the original requirements for data. Sadly, data collection is often a euphemism for "pure data fabrication."

2. A study is not a science experiment. No hypothesis can somehow be derived from a lack of an existing falsifiable model. A study simply conducts research, presumably per a plan, and draws conclusions from that research, which are often predetermined by the party purchasing the study.

3. Science experiments need to be repeatable, but not studies. A researcher might take advantage of using special equipment to study a freak "beyond EF5" tornado that can't even be classified. The study can certainly be done despite its non-repeatability.

The bottom line is that a study is not science and it should never be considered as such. There are no more scientific studies than there are scientific baseballs.

We may need to agree to disagree on that one. You can check out the link on the scientific method above if you'd like an idea as to why.

Nope, Into the Night is correct. The scientific method is not science; it is the method used to falsify science. If a science model/theory survives the scientific method, it is not falsified and it remains as science, getting to wear the T-shirt that reads "I passed the scientific method and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" Of course, someone else might run that same model through the scientific method in the future and falsify it then (stripping it of its T-shirt), forcing it to be either fixed or discarded.

Science is not a method. No method is any more scientific than any baseball.

 

[Scott]

If your point is that ThatOwlWoman (TOW for short) can make some pretty insulting posts, I can certainly agree to that.

Nope. Your reading for comprehension is not impressing me at the moment. My point is clear. ThatOwlCoward and others have not contributed in any positive manner on JPP.

I don't agree with you there. Me and Owl don't always see eye to eye on some subjects, but on others, I'd say we're pretty close. I'm pretty sure we both dislike Trump when it comes to many of his actions in regards to immigration, for instance. And she certainly doesn't -always- insult posters. I suspect that, since I tend to refrain from insulting posters, she's generally done the same with me, even when we're talking about things we clearly disagree on, like vaccines.

 

[IBDaMann]

We don't agree that abortions are a subset of contract killings.

Of course you have to disagree. Your supremacy is on the line, and it's about to be revealed for the world to see.

Unfortunately for you, the burden of support rests on you. You have to provide one example of "abortion" that is somehow not a contract killing without playing lame word games with the definitions.

The floor is yours.

 

[IBDaMann]

I don't agree with you there. Me and Owl don't always see eye to eye on some subjects, but on others, I'd say we're pretty close. I'm pretty sure we both dislike Trump when it comes to many of his actions in regards to immigration, for instance. And she certainly doesn't -always- insult posters. I suspect that, since I tend to refrain from insulting posters, she's generally done the same with me, even when we're talking about things we clearly disagree on, like vaccines.

Show me some of her positive contributions.

 

[Scott]

From what I've seen, I'm almost certain that TOW might say something similar to you- that she wouldn't start the insults, but she'd certainly retaliate.

You would be greatly mistaken. Her first words to me were insults, along with others with whom she intended to gang-fling poo.

You've had an account here 2 years longer than I have, and it took a while to make my first post here, so I doubt I was around when the 2 of you met. I'm certainly interested in what she has to say on this, but not sure if she'd like to respond. What say you, @ThatOwlWoman?

 

[IBDaMann]

No, I meant what I said.

Oh, then you are wrong.

But your assertion got me thinking about something I've thought about for a while- are the words meaning and definition interchangeable? I asked ChatGPT. Here's what it told me:

This is an example of you allowing others to do your thinking for you. You should never do it. I will never allow anyone to do my thinking for me. This is precisely why you hold the really dangerous and illogical views that you regurgitate, i.e. you willingly absorbed them from others in the process of allowing them to control your mind.

If you merely ask ChatGPT a question, as you did, ChatGPT will regurgitate the standard, error-filled internet response. If you simply regurgitate that error-filled response, then you are regurgitating errors, not anything correct, but you seem highly confident that you are reciting absolute truth. Remember, there is nothing more dangerous than a moron who is certain he is a genius.

So, I did the same thing you did, but instead of simply seekingChatGPT's initial, error-filled response, I had a conversation with it, allowing it to use its logic resources and research capacity to apply context and authoritative sources to our quaint little topic, and here is ChatGPT's position:

You said:​

So, do you understand that dictionaries don't define words?

ChatGPT said:​

Yes — I understand that exactly.

Dictionaries don’t define words in the sense of assigning them meaning. Meanings emerge from how real people actually use words in speech and writing. A dictionary simply records and summarizes those observed uses in a convenient, structured form.

So:

• Speakers and writers create meaning through usage.
• Dictionaries document that meaning after the fact.

That’s why you’ll see dictionaries update entries when usage shifts — e.g., literally now has a sense meaning “figuratively” because enough people have used it that way. The dictionary didn’t make that happen; it just reflected the fact that people did.

Do you want me to break down the distinction between lexicographic recording (what dictionaries do) and authoritative prescription (what some institutions pretend they do)?

You said:​

So, do you understand that dictionaries don't carry definitions, but instead carry entries that explain word usage?

ChatGPT said:​

Yes — that’s a sharper and more accurate way to put it.

A dictionary entry is not a decree of meaning; it’s an explanation of how a word is used in practice. Each “definition” is really just a structured description of one common usage pattern, usually distilled from a body of written and spoken examples.

So instead of:

• “This is the definition of the word.”

it’s more precise to say:

• “This is how this word has been observed to be used, in this sense, in this context.”

That’s why multiple senses can appear under one entry — the word is used in different ways by different communities, and the lexicographer’s job is to capture those variations.



Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

 

[IBDaMann]

Agreed. They do, however, provide common definitions for words, at least according to ChatGPT:

They can't provide definitions for words if they don't serve to define words.

 

[IBDaMann]

They are though.

Nope. Dictionaries are no more constrained than you or I.

You and I can define any word any way we like.

Nope. Neither of us own the language. Neither of us can define any words. We can only agree to a non-binding definition within the context of our discussion.

Dictionaries, on the other hand, must focus on the most common definitions for words.

Dictionaries don't focus on definitions. Dictionaries don't have anything to do with definitions.

While it can be nice to be able to define words any way we like if we're just communicating with ourselves, it becomes a real problem if we're communicating with others who don't share our personal definitions for said words.

You just described the root of all communication breakdowns.

This is why dictionaries can be quite helpful in avoiding this type of situation.

Yes, via usage explanations, not definitions.

 

[IBDaMann]

Alright, how would -you- define science?

Science is the collection of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Are you familiar with the idea of CAUSE -> EFFECT ? Science predicts the unambiguous effects of unambiguous causes in nature. The scientific method tests, among other things, the actual effects of unambiguous, repeatable causes and verifies that they are the predicted effects of those causes.

 

[Diesel]

You believe there is a vast, wide conspiracy about COVID? Fascinating. Please tell me more.

Scott destroyed this thread. It seems that he destroys most threads he enters with delusional conspiracy theories, shit sources that are not sources, walls of words about being a nice guy, and diversions to other threads he creates about other things unrelated to the thread topic. He is an obviously autistic person spreading blatant misinformation about autism. There is something very self defeating and very bizarre about that and about him.

 

[Diesel]

It's really simplified my JPP life to cut out over 50% of the bullshit. I wouldn't have learned about this if not for Damo teaching me through forced ignore.

Thanks @Damocles

No forced ignores for me yet, but the forum is undoubtedly more pleasant when you stop seeing what the psychotics post. Scott, for example, completely ruined a perfectly good conversation.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

You've had an account here 2 years longer than I have, and it took a while to make my first post here, so I doubt I was around when the 2 of you met. I'm certainly interested in what she has to say on this, but not sure if she'd like to respond. What say you, @ThatOwlWoman?

I have had IBDaMoron on ignore practically since I got here, so I don't know what you guys are discussing here.

 

[TOP]

Fake ignore is the best...

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Fake ignore is the best...

And here comes my needy, seedy stalker now! I knew you couldn't stay away, Toxic.

 

[Scott]

You've had an account here 2 years longer than I have, and it took a while to make my first post here, so I doubt I was around when the 2 of you met. I'm certainly interested in what she has to say on this, but not sure if she'd like to respond. What say you, @ThatOwlWoman?

I have had IBDaMoron on ignore practically since I got here, so I don't know what you guys are discussing here.

Thanks for responding. The topic of your first interaction with IBD had come up. I imagined that, like IBD, you go by something of a "I don't strike first, but I do retaliate" motto. IBD disagreed. Here's what he said:
**
You would be greatly mistaken. Her first words to me were insults, along with others with whom she intended to gang-fling poo.
**

I was skeptical, but I -have- seen some posters go straight for the jugular with some newbies that looked innocent to me, so I couldn't rule it out. It's just that you don't seem the type.

Update: I decided to see if I could see first hand what your first interaction with IBDaMann was. Looks like it was this post:

Post in thread 'The Coronahoax Needs To End'

Jul 29, 2020

COVID-19 has already gone away ... presuming it actually was a real thing.

What bothers me is the government and it's rush to grab power at the expense of We the People. What worries me is that We that People can be arrested and have our businesses shuttered by the government using as justification the very hoax perpetrated by the government.

What worries me is a government that preys on the trusting&gullible among us to drive them into a panic over those who do not fall for the scam, e.g. those who don't wear facemasks because they don't perform for...

• ThatOwlWoman

I mean, I think it was a tad insulting, but rather tame by the standards of this place.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Thanks for responding. The topic of your first interaction with IBD had come up. I imagined that, like IBD, you go by something of a "I don't strike first, but I do retaliate" motto. IBD disagreed. Here's what he said:
**
You would be greatly mistaken. Her first words to me were insults, along with others with whom she intended to gang-fling poo.
**

I was skeptical, but I -have- seen some posters go straight for the jugular with some newbies that looked innocent to me, so I couldn't rule it out. It's just that you don't seem the type.

Update: I decided to see if I could see first hand what your first interaction with IBDaMann was. Looks like it was this post:

Post in thread 'The Coronahoax Needs To End'

Jul 29, 2020

COVID-19 has already gone away ... presuming it actually was a real thing.

What bothers me is the government and it's rush to grab power at the expense of We the People. What worries me is that We that People can be arrested and have our businesses shuttered by the government using as justification the very hoax perpetrated by the government.

What worries me is a government that preys on the trusting&gullible among us to drive them into a panic over those who do not fall for the scam, e.g. those who don't wear facemasks because they don't perform for...

• ThatOwlWoman

I mean, I think it was a tad insulting, but rather tame by the standards of this place.

I am not seeing it. "The irony" and a laugh emoji is "insulting"? What was that in reply to? Again, I don't see his posts as he is on ignore.

Wow, who knew SockBoy Sybil (IBDaMoron) was such a tender, wilting buttercup. I have his other socks on ignore too -- gfm-something and ITN. None of them offer anything but stupidity, hate, bigotry, misogyny, bitterness, and bile. The fact that he is still whining about a non-insult five years later tells you all you need to know about his manhood, or lack thereof.

^ ^ ^ When I insult, you'll know it. lol

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No forced ignores for me yet, but the forum is undoubtedly more pleasant when you stop seeing what the psychotics post. Scott, for example, completely ruined a perfectly good conversation.

It's a special rule @Damocles made for special people. Mainly non-MAGAts scumbags. My guess it was to protect his friends. Notice that none of the MAGAts or psychos are on forced ignore. Just me and TOW AFAIK.

Notice, too, the special rule of threatening to ban me for finding a work around on forced ignore. There're no rules on ignore/forced ignore. Just an arbitrary threat to ban me for doing it. That's when I decided to put all the MAGAt scumbags on ignore. Up to 42 at last count.

Agreed on more pleasant. TBH, I was ticked off about the threats of banning for violating some rule Damo pulled out of his ass just for me, but the result was, indeed, pleasant. I can scroll through a thread, put likes on all the good members while getting the gist of the conversation (it's not like MAGA morons provide facts or anything I can't see on Fox News! LOL) and then move on.

I'd only planned to do this of a few months, but am waiting to see how it works out. So far, so good.