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

[Into the Night]

We've been bouncing around a bit here. We had been talking about dictionaries.

Which is odd, since no dictionary defines any word. That is not their purpose.

You now seem to be talking about words themselves.

So?

Many words have more than one definition.

Some do. So?

What I like about dictionaries is that they focus on common definitions for words, with some words having more than one definition. Used properly, dictionaries can be quite helpful in helping to ensure that people mean the same thing when talking about a word.

No dictionary defines any word. That is not their purpose.

I agree with you in part. 2 people can certainly agree to define a word any way they like- dictionaries are more constrained. Generally if not exclusively, they only list definitions for words that are fairly common. Again, the best part about this in my view is that it makes it easier for people to agree on the definitions for words even if they don't agree on various other things.

No dictionary owns any word. No dictionary defines any word. In English, the meaning of words don't just change on a whim. They don't really change at all.

The word 'science' is defined by philosophy. So is the word 'real' and 'reality'. So is the word 'religion'.
Most words in the English language stem from Latin or French. Their meaning doesn't change. Democrats are constantly trying to redefine words, to the point they don't speak English anymore. Then only speak Liberal. It looks like English, but words have no meaning or shifting meaning. For example, 'gay' means 'happy and carefree' and stems from the French 'gai'. Democrats use this word to try to describe is some kind of 'right', or 'supremacy' or to describe one of their various sexual deviancies.

New words DO come along. 'Magat', for example, is used by Democrats to describe themselves. As far as I'm concerned, 'magat' means 'Democrats'. It's a synonym they've apparently given themselves. It has no other meaning. This word showed up recently. I believe it's barely a few years old.

 

[Into the Night]

I now have 42 MAGA morons on ignore....even if over half of them have multiple accounts.

MAGA isn't a person, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Science is not a 'study' or 'method'. No study is 'scientific'. No method is 'scientific'.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, I think that depends on the quality of the studies, papers and articles.

Science is not a study, paper, article, magazine, website, book, or pamphlet.

The main problem here is that when it comes to science,

Science has no problem. It simply exists.

particularly the scientific method, I'm not sure I fully understand all of it. I -think- I'm close to fully grasping it, but I'd rather rely on someone who's been working on such things for much longer, such as Mike Stone, when it comes to biological viruses and germ vs. terrain theory. As to people insulting me for my beliefs, it can be disheartening, which is why I have taken long breaks from debating whether or not biological viruses exist here.

Science is not a 'method'. What is 'biological' about a virus?

 

[Into the Night]

It wasn't originally. I get into the details of how things moved from abortion to contract killing in post #825.

A contract killing is arranging for a murder by another party (the killer). The arrangement is the contract. The killer might be paid for his services, or some other means may be used to compensate the killer for his services. The contractor (the one that hires the killer) and the contractee (the killer) come to some agreement, and the killer dispatches the victim as agreed.

The contractor makes the decision to kill. The killer provides the service. The victim gets no say in the matter.

What about a contract killing is unclear to you?

 

[Into the Night]

I now know that you'd wish to talk about that, yes. However, I'm still not sure if you agree to define the term as Wikipedia does. In case you'd like to see Wikipedia's definition, it's here:

Contract killing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia does not define any word (except 'Wikipedia').

 

[Into the Night]

I did, yes.



I got this from duckduckgo's search assist:
**
A proper subset in mathematics is a set that contains some, but not all, elements of another set. If set A is a proper subset of set B, then all elements of A are in B, but B has at least one element that is not in A, denoted as A ⊂ B.
**

So you didn't know what a set and a subset is. You had to look them up.

Unfortunately, nothing in logic or mathematics is defined by a search engine result.

 

[Into the Night]

Do you understand it?

Heh. Do you expect an honest answer to that question?

 

[Into the Night]

Had a little chuckle there . If people find my questions a problem, I might ask them why they find them a problem. However, if their first reaction is to insult either me or my ideas, I tend to point that out how that is stultifying my interest in responding to them. If it's someone who's insulted me repeatedly in the past, I've started to simply avoid responding to such insulting posts at all. By doing this, I avoid the vicious circle of insult and counter insult and spend more time on people who are willing to have civilized discussions with me.

This is good. There's enough mudslinging insults on JPP that accomplishes absolutely nothing.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I now have 42 MAGA morons on ignore....even if over half of them have multiple accounts.

Minty is like a Jello dessert and best served cold, on your ignore list. lol

 

[IBDaMann]

Many words have more than one definition.

I think you mean to say that many words have more than one meaning.

What I like about dictionaries is that they focus on common definitions for words,

Dictionaries do not define words. You enjoy the descriptions of usage. Everything about a dictionary is how words are used, i.s. usage. Nobody owns any language.

Used properly, dictionaries can be quite helpful in helping to ensure that people mean the same thing when talking about a word.

Dictionaries can be quite helpful in ensuring that people can communicate through proper word usage.

I agree with you in part. 2 people can certainly agree to define a word any way they like- dictionaries are more constrained.

Dictionaries are no more constrained than you or I.

 

[IBDaMann]

Here's the first definition of science from The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition:
**
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
**
Do you agree with that definition for the purpose of our discussion?

I do not. None of this is science. I don't see "falsifiable" mentioned anywhere, nor do I see anything about models that predict nature. I would never agree to this definition.

 

[Life is Golden]

Hahahaha! Said the fearful twat who cringed inside her home for months and wouldn't leave w/o full protective gear not even to go to work.

Yet it is you not me who has the spike protein stil replicating and circulating inside your system.

Like a bomb waiting to go off.

 

[IBDaMann]

The act of getting a Covid jab is synonymous with ignorance.

I have to disagree. The act of getting a COVID jab is submission to coercion.

I am thankful every day I did not get one. Best decision I ever made.

I extend to you my congrats. I was successfully coerced.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Minty is like a Jello dessert and best served cold, on your ignore list. lol

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

 

[IBDaMann]

Hahahaha! Said the fearful twat who cringed inside her home for months and wouldn't leave w/o full protective gear not even to go to work.

@Scott, just bask in ThatOwlCoward's love and kindness, and take in the consummate joy that she is.

 

[Scott]

Yes, different dictionaries certainly aren't identical, but in general, they are all pretty similar.

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

 

[Scott]

Yes, different dictionaries certainly aren't identical, but in general, they are all pretty similar. That doesn't mean that it isn't interesting to see how they differ and why, but the differences are small enough that, generally speaking, people could still have decent conversations even if they each defined words only from different dictionaries.

You are describing usage descriptions, not definitions. I'm fairly certain that you are not a computer programmer. Conflicting definitions, even ones with minor differences, result in catastrophic errors. Similar usage descriptions, however, are good enough for a conversation.

I actually started a computer programming course, but never finished it. I know that computers need to be given precise instructions whereas humans can make do with more vagueness. The point I'm making is that dictionaries are very much in the business of providing definitions for words. I certainly agree that they are not as precise as computer language, but humans can deal with a certain amount of vagueness. There are limits, however, which is why dictionaries are so important- they impose certain limits as to just how far one can stretch the definition of a word.

 

[Scott]

I didn't assert that. My assertion is that when having discussions, there needs to be an agreement as to how the participants in said discussion are defining a given word.

Then we agree. Normally, someone proposes a definition for the discussion, and the others say "that's good enough for a discussion."

That's what I've been trying to do with the definition of contract killings, but apparently you refuse to accept any definition from Wikipedia. Why?

 

[Scott]

You apparently switched the subject of the discussion- the discussion had been about abortions.

It's not switching subjects to ask you a question.

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. I strongly suspected that you were attempting to twist the definition of abortion so much that it'd be impossible to hold a constructive conversation on the subject of whether women should be able to have abortions, which is why I immediately brought up 2 dictionary definitions for abortion in post 764. It was only in your response in post #771 that I came to realize that you'd actually decided to switch subjects from abortion, which is what I had been discussing with anonymoose, to contract killings.