Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:33 pmLacking evidence or criteria for sanity/insanity this is a "No true scotsman fallacy"

How can a question which you vehemently REFUSE to answer be a strawman?

I would be more willing to ASSERT that it is a challenge that you are UNABLE to tackle

Q.E.D.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:39 pm I answered it.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:39 pm But it's a strawman, unrelated to the abstract vs concrete fallacy you base your religion on.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:39 pm you've shown your error to the whole world.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:10 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:10 am

You are right, it is perfectly adequate and what I have been patiently waiting for. Now, would you like to pick one?

Besides the input of just one word both are absolutely correct. But that is NOT because they are correct from your perspective and from your usage of words but because of another perspective and another way of looking at and seeing things.

If you would like we can delve into this much deeper and in much greater detail than you could even yet imagine, but if you are going to carry on sarcastically and with full skepticism like you have been, then there is NO use.



A process which is unfolding right this very minute.



I am sure that would get laughed at more than just might.

But what you just said was a funny thing to say, considering that there was NO connection between that and what we are talking about.

I wasn't talking to you.

I wrote something.
You directly responded to it.
I directly responded back to you, then
You wrote the above.

Why did you write this?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:20 pm You are both so tedious I thought you were the same person.
I'm also not sure why either of you is writing anything because according to both of you, word meanings mean nothing (or anything you want them to mean). You could be talking about the weather for all I know (or care).

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:53 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:20 pm You are both so tedious I thought you were the same person.
I'm also not sure why either of you is writing anything because according to both of you, word meanings mean nothing (or anything you want them to mean). You could be talking about the weather for all I know (or care).

It's pretty obvious that you are either not paying attention or not understanding. Words meanings don't mean 'nothing'. Word meanings mean TOO MANY things! Words are imprecise! Language is ambiguous and yes, people do invent their own meanings and use language in a way they seem appropriate.

This is HOW dialects and jargon develop. This is HOW languages evolves. To assume that words have precise, inflexible and exact and ever-unchanging meaning is your error. Reading into your use of the word 'tedious' as an expression of frustration, I am terribly sorry to disappoint you that language doesn't work the way you want it to work; or that human communication is not as easy as you desire it to be.

That is why communication is a LEARNED skill.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:02 pm You are an idiot who doesn't understand language or its subtleties.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:02 pm I'm well aware of the evolution of language, but that doesn't excuse the deliberate mis-use of words, or general illiteracy.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:04 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:02 pm You are an idiot who doesn't understand language or its subtleties.

Thats ironic. This is somewhat in line with what I am trying to tell you. What you call 'subtlety' - I am calling ambiguity and imprecision.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:09 pm Oh please. Yanks have ruined the English language with their anti-intellectualism and obsession with 'dumbing' everything down.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:10 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:09 pm Oh please. Yanks have ruined the English language with their anti-intellectualism and obsession with 'dumbing' everything down.

Case in point you have ASSumed that I am a yank.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:12 pm If you are not then don't use yank 'spelling' because it makes you look like an even bigger fool.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:18 pm Clearly too stupid (and American) to understand the subtleties of what a 'grammar nazi' is.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:19 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:18 pm Clearly too stupid (and American) to understand the subtleties of what a 'grammar nazi' is.

As somebody who just unsuccessfully failed to criticise my spelling, I'd say you fit the bill. Which means that you UNDERSTOOD what I was saying and then you still CHOSE to correct/criticise/judge me.

And if that definition isn't in "THE dictionary" - I just added it... c-u-n-t

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:39 pm As word meaning are entirely subjective (according to you) then I suppose that lot must mean ''You are the most brilliant person I have ever encountered. I worship at your feet and kiss the ground you walk on, oh great one''.