What LEM is not

[Skepdick]

You're quibbling.

If you ever develop that self-awareness skill you should examine this erroneous assertion.

There's no need for anyone to mean anything by those random patterns.

Really? So you find meaning in random patterns that nobody meant anything with?

They have meaning insofar there is a language with which they can be interpreted.

Why are you interpreting random patterns as "language" of any kind ?!? Language is how humans communicate.

Which human arranged those random patterns? Who is conveying anything using those random patterns?

language
/ˈlaŋɡwɪdʒ/
noun
1.
the principal method of human communication, consisting of words used in a structured and conventional way and conveyed by speech, writing, or gesture.

You need to grow up, Skeppie. You're still just a tiny little spoiled child.

Magnus, when you grow up (and with hind sight) you might come to recognize who the little spoiled child in this dialogue is.

[Magnus Anderson]

Magnus, when you grow up (and with hind sight) you might come to recognize who the little spoiled child in this dialogue is.

You are.

[Skepdick]

Magnus, when you grow up (and with hind sight) you might come to recognize who the little spoiled child in this dialogue is.

You are.

Q.E.D still plenty growing up to do.

[attofishpi]

Well.


Hopefully the Law of the Excluded Middle doesn't work tonight.

Atto 4 his knight out..


LUCIFER MODE

[Magnus Anderson]

Q.E.D still plenty growing up to do.

Here's a proof of you not understanding what equivocation is. This is from another thread, your own, back when you ironically called yourself "Logik".

The Classical law of identity (as stated) is inconsistent
viewtopic.php?t=26228

What is inconsistent is the notion of =

Identity: A = A
Equality: A = A

This is called EQUIVOCATION.
In linguistics it is called semantic overloading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_overload

You don't understand what the Law of Excluded Middle is.
You don't understand what the Law of Identity is.
You don't understand what equivocation s.
Is there anything you actually understand?

I swear, you got to be mentally ill.
A freak who's trying way too hard to be special ( and you are special but not in a good way. )

In the above, we can see that you conflate equivocation with semantic overloading.
As if the word "equivocation" means "using one and the same word in more than one way".

Let's put aside the fact that you don't really understand that the Law of Identity has nothing to do with identity equality, what you clumsily call "identity" -- purely your own invention -- and that the equals sign is not overloaded at all, i.e. it really only means equality.

As I keep saying, utter and complete retard.

[Magnus Anderson]

A decent explanation of the two different concepts of equivocation:

Equivocation and the Equivocation Fallacy
https://effectiviology.com/equivocation/

[Skepdick]

In the above, we can see that you conflate equivocation with semantic overloading.

Idiot.

"Semantic overloading" is just a different way of saying "calling two different things by the same name"

In linguistics, semantic overload occurs when a word or phrase has more than one meaning

[Magnus Anderson]

Idiot.

"Semantic overloading" is just a different way of saying "calling two different things by the same name"

Idiot.

That is NOT what equivocation is.

[Skepdick]

Idiot.

"Semantic overloading" is just a different way of saying "calling two different things by the same name"

Idiot.

That is NOT what equivocation is.

Yes it is. Idiot.

One symbol. Multiple referents/resolutions.

[Magnus Anderson]

Yes it is. Idiot.

One symbol. Multiple referents/resolutions.

No, it is not. Idiot.

That is SEMANTIC OVERLOADING.

The word "equivocation" has 2 meanings. And none of them are reducible to that of semantic overloading.

1) the use of ambiguous language with the aim to conceal truth or mislead

Using one and the same word in two different ways is not a sufficient condition for this type of equivocation. It must be AMBIGUOUS, it must be INTENTIONAL and the intention must be TO CONCEAL THE TRUTH OR MISLEAD.

When someone says, "The head of the company said that his head is hurting" that's not an equivocation of this type because there's no ambiguity whatsoever ( noone is mislead by the semantic shift, with the exception of idiots such as yourself. )

Even if that statement was ambiguous, intentionally or unintentionally, it still wouldn't be an example of type 1 equivocation because there is no intention to conceal or mislead.

2) a misleading semantic shift during an argument that results in a non-sequitur

1) Only men are philosophers.
2) Women are not men.
3) Therefore, women are not philosophers.

LEARN ENGLISH LANGUAGE, BUDDY.

[Skepdick]

Yes it is. Idiot.

One symbol. Multiple referents/resolutions.

No, it is not. Idiot.

That is SEMANTIC OVERLOADING.

The word "equivocation" has 2 meanings. And none of them are reducible to semantic overloading.

1) the use of ambiguous language with the aim to conceal the truth or mislead

Using one and the same word in two different ways is not a sufficient condition for this type of equivocation. It must be AMBIGUOUS, it must be INTENTIONAL and the intention must be TO CONCEAL THE TRUTH OR MISLEAD.

When someone says, "The head of the company said that his head is hurting" that's not an equivocation of this type because there's no ambiguity whatsoever ( noone is mislead by the semantic shift, with the exception of idiots such as yourself. )

Even if that statement was ambiguous, intentionally or unintentionally, it still wouldn't be an example of type 1 equivocation because there is no intention to conceal or mislead.

2) a misleading semantic shift during an argument that results in a non-sequitur

1) Only men are philosophers.
2) Women are not men.
3) Therefore, women are not philosophers.

LEARN ENGLISH LANGUAGE, BUDDY.

Your superior knowledge of the English language has helped you fuckall, buddy.

Knowing how to define "equivocation" hasn't stopped you from equivocating.
Me not knowing how to define "equivocation" isn't preventing me from recognizing your equivocation, and point it out.

You know, because thinking happens outside of language/definitions, idiot.

LEARN TO THINK, BUDDY.

[Magnus Anderson]

Me not knowing how to define "equivocation"

. . . is causing you serious problems.

But you refuse to face that.

You know, because thinking happens outside of language/definitions, idiot.

Not true.

And you're not merely making extremely bad attempts at thinking.

You're also making extremely bad attempts at communication.
Communication involves UNDERSTANDING OTHERS and BEING UNDERSTOOD BY OTHERS.
You're terrible at both.

This is an Internet forum, buddy.
Did you forget that?

Or is it impossible for you to get outside of your stupid head?

LEARN TO THINK, BUDDY.

You should seriously try that.

If anything, it's good that you're implicitly acknowledging that you've been misusing the term "equivocation".

That's a good step.

[Skepdick]

Me not knowing how to define "equivocation"

. . . is causing you serious problems.

None whatsoever. You can't even define "define".

But you refuse to face that.

Correct. Nothing like a problem I can ignore without any consequences.

You know, because thinking happens outside of language/definitions, idiot.

Not true.

Your inability to think outside of language/definitions. doesn't mean it's not true.

it simply means you are incompetent at thinking without outside of language/definitions.

And you're not merely making extremely bad attempts at thinking.

People who can't think are in no position to make qualitative judgments about my thinking.

You're also making extremely bad attempts at communication.
Communication involves UNDERSTANDING OTHERS and BEING UNDERSTOOD BY OTHERS.
You're terrible at both.

I don't give a fuck about being understood or understanding you. I am not trying to bond with you.

I am pointing out your equivocation - I am not trying to fuck you.

This is an Internet forum, buddy.
Did you forget that?

Exactly. If you want to be understood and understand others - try dating.

Perhaps you are here because you are incompetent at that too?

If anything, it's good that you're implicitly acknowledging that you've been misusing the term "equivocation".

I am not misusing it. I am using it in a manner that upsets you.

If it pisses you off that I don't think/speak in the manner you insist - that's all the reason I need to double down.

[Magnus Anderson]

Let me show you how your shameless disregard for language reduces you to an arrogant zombie.

Remember this post of mine?
It's been a while.

viewtopic.php?p=736847#p736847

"X is either A or B" means "X belongs to the set of elements { A, B }".

If X is A, then X belongs to { A, B }. If that's the case, the statement is true.

If X is B, then X belongs to { A, B }. If that's the case, the statement is true.

If X is something else, i.e. if it's neither A nor B, then it does not belong to { A, B }. In that case, the statement is false.

As can be seen, both "X is A" and "X is B" are perfectly compatible with "X is either A or B". Not only that, the latter can be deduced from both "X is A" and "X is B".

That basically refutes Skepdick's claim that "X is A" and "X is either A or B" contradict each other.

Do you remember your stupid reply to it?

Equivocation.

"X is either A or B" is a binding statement containing a free variable.
"A is either A or B" is a statement containing NO free variable.

Given that X is declared to be either A or B then it becomes impossible for X to be anything other than A; or B.

Are you using the word "equivocation" the way everyone does or are you using it your own way?

I am using it precisely the way it's supposed to be used.

You insist that X belongs to the set of elements {A,B}. And then you begin talking about X being something other than A or B.
First you were speaking about X ∈ {A,B}
And then you were speaking about X ∉ {A,B}

Those are two different uses of X.

Here, we can see you using the word "equivocation" to mean "contradiction". You're literally conflating equivocation with contradiction. At the same time, we can see you shamelessly claiming that you're using the word equivocation "the way it's supposed to be used". That is just your typical Skeppie McDickie level of arrogance.

And you didn't even understood my post . . .

You thought that I said that "X belongs to { A, B }."
Which I did not.

And then you also thought that I said that "X does not belong to { A, B }."
Which I did not either.

You completely misunderstood the post.

And the fact that you don't understand that "X is A" and "X is either A or B" are perfectly compatible statements . . .

It's . . . being kind to you to say that it's horribly embarrassing.

But Skeppie McDickie is a master of hiding himself from embarrassment, isn't he?

[Skepdick]

Here, we can see you using the word "equivocation" to mean "contradiction". You're literally conflating equivocation with contradiction.

No I don't, you dumb nitpicking zombie.

Equivocation entailing a contradiction is not the same thing as conflating equivocation with contradiction.