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

[Scott]

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

en.wikipedia.org

Would you agree to this?

Dismissed. False authority fallacy. Stick with authoritative sources.

duckduckgo's search assist seems authoritative enough to me. If you don't like the definition it comes up with, by all means, feel free to cite a source you feel is authoritative and I can weigh in as you weighed in just now.

 

[Scott]

As Lefty has pointed out to you a few times now,

Leave AProudLefty out of our discussion, unless you plan on adopting his dishonesty and lack of credibility as your own.

I don't see Lefty the same way you do. In this case, I fully agree with him. So, this time quoting the full sentence in the next quote of mine...

As Lefty has pointed out to you a few times now, I never claimed to support contract killings.

You approve of a proper subset of contract killings.

No, I never did that.

 

[Scott]

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

en.wikipedia.org

Would you agree to this?

You should always stick with authoritative sources.

Read this: Dictionaries are all about Usage

I'm beginning to see a real problem here. You seem to think that you are the go to for authoritative sources. But I never agreed that this was the case.

 

[Scott]

So the bottom line is that abortion is a proper subset of contract killings.

I strongly doubt it, [snip]

Convenient [snip]

No, I'm telling you that I strongly doubt your assertion. I don't say that it's "convenient" that you believe that "abortion is a proper subset of contract killings". I acknowledge that it's your belief and leave it at that.

With that said, let's now deal with my complete sentence that you snipped above, as well as the second part of your response...

So the bottom line is that abortion is a proper subset of contract killings.

I strongly doubt it, but if you want to try to persuade me, by all means give it a go.

Only you can persuade you.

No, only I can change my mind. You have the capability to try to persuade me with reasoned arguments, but apparently not the desire. That's fine.

 

[Scott]

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.

Yes. You approve of contract killings.

No, I don't.

 

[Scott]

The extreme rise in numbers in what? Autism?

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.

I'm not interested in the work of Big Pharma shills like the American Academy of Pediatrics:

American Academy of Pediatrics Shills for Big Pharma, Pushes COVID Vaccines for Kids

The American Academy of Pediatrics has a history of supporting the position of Big Pharma, denying the dangers of mercury and thimerosal in vaccines, endorsing routine HPV vaccines and recommending Ritalin, a psychiatric drug, for 4-year-olds.

childrenshealthdefense.org

I see that their latest project is to try to shut down religious exemptions for taking vaccines:

American Academy of Pediatrics Wants to Shut Down Religious Vaccine Exemptions

The American Academy of Pediatrics today said religious and philosophical vaccine exemptions are “problematic” and should be prohibited for children attending daycare and school in the U.S. Critics said maintaining exemptions is essential in preserving parental choice, medical ethics and...

childrenshealthdefense.org

There is plenty of evidence that vaccines -do- cause autism. I personally suspect the site with the most papers providing such evidence is here:

How Do Vaccines Cause Autism?

The Body of Research Supporting Vaccine Autism Causation

howdovaccinescauseautism.org

 

[Scott]

As Lefty has pointed out to you a few times now, I never claimed to support contract killings.

Yes you did.

Can you provide evidence for your assertion?

 

[domer76]

Insults are the surest way of silencing any productive discussion. If that's your aim, congratulations. If it's not, you might consider explaining why you don't find my sources to be trustable.

Every fucking one I’ve looked into are misinformation, pseudoscience conspiracy sites, people who have been kicked out of their professions or otherwise recognized as quacks.

But, you are wrong. The best way to stop intelligent discussion is to continue to post quackery bullshit like you do. Stop cluttering my screen with that garbage or you’ll soon become invisible.

 

[Scott]

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?

No dictionary defines any word.

I didn't say they did. I said they offer word definitions.

 

[Scott]

Alright, so your definition of science is that it is a set of falsifiable theories. I think I can work with that.

Do you know the ramifications of that simple statement?

Why don't you tell me what you think the ramifications of my simple statement are?

 

[IBDaMann]

You think I'm lying to you?

Yes. Your EVASION is obvious. Your FEAR for your supremacy is transparent.

 

[IBDaMann]

... why you are so keen on avoiding using common definitions of terms [by those who own the language] and instead opting to use your own [much better understanding] ...

FTFY.

You are chanting that somehow someone owns the English language and has the authority to define terms that we must somehow all use. That is a stupid thing to be chanting, and you are doing it out of desperation to cling to your supremacy. You have been told that nobody owns the English language (which you should already have learned) and you have even been provided authoritative references, as well as your own ChatGPT reference, corroborating the common sense that I have been saying. You nonetheless quibble against the most obvious of common sense because you are in panic mode over your realization that your support for contract killings is totally indefensible.

You have been asked many times to explain your support for contract killings, e.g. support for abortion, a proper subset of contract killings, and you have done nothing but EVADE dishonestly.

 

[IBDaMann]

I've already said that I disagree with your logic here.

It's not *my* logic. It is simply logic. You don't get to disagree with logic and claim to be honest. You have to show that set theory is somehow erroneous, or show that the abortions you support are not contract killings.

You know you can't do that because your position is indefensible. You want killing supremacy. That is shitty.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'd say that what you're doing right now is the diversion.

I get it. Nothing you will say on this topic will be honest. You are, after all, fighting for supremacy, not equality, and the supremacy you seek is absolutely the worst kind of supremacy possible, i.e. the ability to kill living humans with impunity, such that they have no say, no legal representation, no day in court, ... just the whim of the customer to order a hit, even on one's own children.

That is shitty. Your denial is dismissed. For the record, I will never support any pursuit of supremacy, least of all killing supremacy.

For the audience, here is my full statement, not the 7 word clip that IBDaMann quoted: I watched how our conversation evolved above, ...

Do you really think anyone cares which lame excuse you use to dishonestly EVADE explaining your support for killing supremacy? Who do you believe has approval criteria that sets minimum quality standards for lame excuses?

 

[IBDaMann]

A theory is an explanatory argument.

What do you think it is explaining? Hint: it is modeling an unambiguous CAUSE -> EFFECT in nature. Do you know what the word for that is?

It doesn't predict anything.

It is nothing more than a prediction in nature. The prediction is the explanation. The scientific method tests the prediction. The scientific method doesn't test any explanations that aren't predictions.

Science MUST be transcribed into a closed functional system like mathematics to gain the power of prediction.

Nope. Science always remains an open functional system. The math is the unambiguous language that makes it falsifiable. In chemistry, chemistry notation is used instead of math.

This is why you find many theories either expressed as an equation, or by using math,

... because they must be falsifiable. You won't find Christianity expressed in math.

creating another theory of science based on that extension of math.

Nope. Science is not falsifiable until it is expressed unambiguously, hence the math, or the chemistry notation, etc.

A model is not a prediction.

The model is the prediction. The prediction is what is being modeled. The math is the formal language that makes it unambiguous.

It is the EQUATION that predicts, and nothing else.

Thank you. The equation is the model, which is the prediction. The math only makes it unfalsifiable.

If I tell you that the Raiders are going to beat the Chargers, the English language isn't the assertion, it is merely the vehicle, proque puedo usar otro idioma para decir que los Raiders desbarratarán a los Chargers y la aseveración no cambiará.

Falsifiability is not mathematics.

Do you know what falsifiability is, and how mathematics provides it?

ANY closed functional system can be used to test a theory.

Incorrect. Kurt Gödel proved that all closed functional systems are incomplete. Anyway, it's totally irrelevant. The scientific method is procedural and is not a closed functional system.

Mathematics is not science.

Mathematics is not peanut butter. Focus on the falsifiability that math provides and you'll be on the right track.

 

[IBDaMann]

I don't see Lefty the same way you do.

You find his dishonesty useful, especially his attempts to defend the indefensible.

In this case, I fully agree with him.

Of course you do, even when he isn't saying anything truthful. You're not helping your argument. You are simply seeking moral support.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm beginning to see a real problem here.

You are feeling your supremacy threatened. I totally get it.

You seem to think that you are the go to for authoritative sources

Sure, you can think of me as such. You should be taking notes on everything I am teaching you.

But I never agreed that this was the case.

When I was paying attention in school and elsewhere, I wasn't doing so to win your agreement.