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

[Scott]

If I thought I was wasting my time with you, I wouldn't respond to your posts. You are so much more then your views on who has and who doesn't have socks.

Sorry, dude, not a conspiracy theorist. I just roll with the science. Good luck with your anti-vax campaign.

Lol . We have different ideas as to what true science shows when it comes to vaccines, but that's fine. We agree on other things.

 

[Scott]

The one thing we can agree on is that dictionaries don't -define- words.

The one thing on which we agree is that nobody gets to prescribe any definition for others, that people can merely agree upon a definition within a given discussion.

Sure, but I also think that people can generally agree on definitions if they're found in dictionaries.

 

[Scott]

I believe women should be allowed to choose whether or not they want to remove a fetus from their body.

You believe that women should have the right to hire a killer [snip]

No, I don't. Again, the problem with your assertion is that you are using the word killer. I believe that a woman should be allowed to choose someone to help them end their pregnancy if said woman decides it would be better for her well being. It may also be one of the best way to decrease the millions of child deaths per year:

Child mortality and causes of death

<strong style="background-color:transparent;font-size:16px;text-align:inherit;text-transform:inherit;white-space:inherit;word-spacing:normal;caret-color:auto;"></strong><p>Substantial global progress has been made in reducing childhood mortality since 1990. The total number of under-5 deaths...

www.who.int

 

[Scott]

I don't know about that, but it looks like we agree that personal definitions for words can cause a lot of problems.

Nope. The problems come from not agreeing on definitions

Yes, and people tend to disagree the most on definitions when they're personal ones instead of common ones that can be found in dictionaries.

 

[Scott]

You and I can define any word any way we like. Dictionaries, on the other hand, must focus on the most common definitions for words. 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. This is why dictionaries can be quite helpful in avoiding this type of situation.

Yes, via usage explanations, not definitions.

I don't see the difference.

Convenient.

Have you ever considered that it's convenient for your beliefs that you -do- see a difference?

If you ask me "What does Chilango mean"? I don't get to define any words, nor does anyone.

Sure you could. 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. It would be a mess in terms of trying to have a discussion with you on chilangos though. This is what you're attempting to do with abortion. You are averse to using definitions for abortion found in dictionaries precisely because that's not how you yourself define the term.

 

[Scott]

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 [profanity starts up]

I give up.

I can respect your position, but you and I differ here. For me, the gloves come off.

When it's clear that logic has no home in a conversation, it's best to throw in the towel.

 

[Scott]

[Anyway], I figure if I make the mistake as a native English speaker that's read a lot of books and written a fair amount, and that sites meant to help English teachers don't cover, it's probably not that big a deal. I can't see myself saying "at which I started", but I certainly could have said "being a native English speaker was enough to get a pass to do hired in the first school I taught in".

Did you just basically say that you can teach English to others, but if you make an error, it is, by definition, not big enough of a deal for you to learn and to improve such that you never make that mistake again?

No, just that it's not that big of a deal. That doesn't mean I can't improve.

 

[Scott]

Of course you are dissatisfied. It is a very political topic, thus Wikipedia has the carefully crafted, Marxist narrative locked down so that no Wikipedia contributor can alter a single word.

I don't know about it being "marxist",

Sure you do. I just told you.

You telling me that something is marxist doesn't make it so.

and I'm sure that -some- contributors can still alter things,

Nope. You are sure that nobody can alter any wiki that is locked down by Wikipedia.

I've taken a look at Wikipedia's protections. All protection levels are still editable by Admins at least. See for yourself if you like:

Wikipedia:Protection policy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now, in cases where only Admins can edit pages, and where said Admins hold views I believe are mistaken, that can be a problem. But Wikipedia claims that the vast majority of pages are editable by anyone and I haven't seen anything that contradicts this. As to vaccines, which started us on this topic, it falls under the "semi protected" category, which means that new or unregistered editors can't edit it, but everyone else can. I've made a few edits, so I could edit it. From past experience with subjects of this nature, however, I suspect it wouldn't be worth my time, as there are probably people higher up in the hierarchy who wouldn't agree with the types of edits I'd make and would just remove them.

 

[Scott]

people need starting points. Wikipedia offers them.

Wikipedia is a source of political indoctrination of which you agree. It pushes all sorts of supremacy ideologies; I'm certain you eat all of that up like lions eating a gazelle.

I've already mentioned that I don't agree with some of Wikipedia's stances on certain subjects, such as vaccines. That being said, Wikipedia offers people places to start on just about any subject and, generally speaking, I think they have good information on their site.

Wikipedia certainly has its flaws, but at least it always lists sources for its material. Many mainstream news publications don't.

Unfortunately, it lists nonauthoritative sources for those as well.

Sometimes, sure, but then those can be debunked. And as mentioned, at least they list their sources. Many mainstream publications don't even offer their readers that common courtesy.

 

[Scott]

You are engaging in a standard fallacy called a "Special Pleading" fallacy.

I think we may need to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Scott]

Show me some of her positive contributions.

The opening post in a thread Walt started back in 2020 comes to mind:

https://justplainpolitics.com/threads/want-to-know-what-a-nice-person-thatowlwoman-is.133700/

Guess who's banned from that thread

You?

Correct. They don't want me pointing out all the poo she slings on an hourly basis. That would disrupt the synthetic narrative now wouldn't it?

We just see things differently. As you know, I have some positions on the left as well as some on the right. So when it comes to Trump's policies on immigration or abortion, I'm pretty sure I'm on her side. Thus, I am sometimes on her good side.

 

[Scott]

When it comes to abortions, this clearly isn't just about the mother and the person performing the abortion. It's also about society as a whole.

Too funny! You specifically omitted the living human being killed without his consent, without any legal representation, without so much as a day in court.

Does a chicken or a cow get their day in court before getting slaughtered for consumption? They are highly intelligent creatures, after all:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/the-intelligent-hen-chickens-smarter-than-toddlers/news-story/ee489b1bb6455dde2b18381285651ec2

Cows: Science Shows They're Bright and Emotional Individuals

Thinking of cows simply as "food products" ignores who they truly are. In fact, science shows they have rich and deep cognitive and emotional lives.

www.psychologytoday.com

As you point out, we don't eat human fetuses, so I would say there is more deference towards human fetuses than adult chickens or cows, but I doubt there are few if any examples where a human fetus has an intelligence that is in the same ballpark as its mother. This is why the mother's wishes on whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term must take precedence.

 

[Scott]

A large chunk of people in North America believe that the mother's wishes are more important than the fetus' life.

In a constitution republic that guarantees individual rights and the civil liberties of the minority, there is no democratic vote.

Fortunately, the courts disagree, at least to some extent. The U.S. Supreme court has now decided that individual U.S. states decide are to decide whether abortions should be legal or not, and if legal, under what circumstances. Which means U.S. Citizens have the ability to vote with their feet as to what laws they want to live under.

 

[Into the Night]

We may need to agree to disagree here, atleast for now.



Irrelevant.



That second sentence of yours is the key. We can agree to define a word any way we like- all we need is to agree upon said definition. Dictionaries, on the other hand, are constrained to -common- definitions for words.

No dictionary defines any word.

 

[Damocles]

We gotta start calling Scott "Timex" because he takes a lickin' but keeps on clickin'...

 

[Into the Night]

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.

ChatGPT does not define any word nor magickally give power to any dictionary to define a word. No dictionary defines any word.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't know about that, but it looks like we agree that personal definitions for words can cause a lot of problems.

So stop redefining words.

 

[Into the Night]

Your credibility in regards to deciphering who is and isn't a sock is rather tarnished,

You don't get to decide 'credibility' for anyone. Omniscience fallacy.

considering you accused -me- of having socks here. I've never had a sock here, or in any other online forum.

The jury is still out on that.

IBDaMann and Into the Night seem to get along fairly well, but getting along with someone is definitely not the same thing as being the same person.

Very true.

They also do have some minor differences of opinion from time to time.

Heh. Sometimes even major ones!

I haven't interacted as much with gfm, but he seems like an alright guy from my rather vague recollections of him. From what little I remember of Uncensored2008, he seems to be a tad too abrasive for me to communicate with much.

Grow a thicker skin.

 

[Into the Night]

Then why waste your time with me, Scott?

Good question. I don't why anyone would want to waste time with you.

 

[Into the Night]

I no longer have the English grammar books I had back then. Even if I did, I suspect they might not have finer points like the one you mentioned, as they were for grade school kids. I actually went to a web site I tend to frequent these days for my english students, englishclub.com and... I finally found its section on prepositional phrases -.- It was hidden in a page on phrases in general:

https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/sentence/phrases.php

Anywa, I figure if I make the mistake as a native English speaker that's read a lot of books and written a fair amount, and that sites meant to help English teachers don't cover, it's probably not that big a deal. I can't see myself saying "at which I started", but I certainly could have said "being a native English speaker was enough to get a pass to do hired in the first school I taught in".

So you choose to remain illiterate, calling your grammar problems a 'small mistake'.

Illiteracy: Proper nouns are always capitalized. Misspelled words. Use of comma instead of period. Sentences begin with a capital letter. Missing comma. Double verb. Improper contraction.

Logic errors: False authority fallacies. Genetic fallacy. Red Herring fallacies.