That kind of over-punctuation is something like a neon sign that says "do not respond", but I tend to ignore those signals, don't I? I will clarify myself, for whoever bothers reading this.
![Nerd :nerd: :nerd:](/data/vbsmilies/cool-smiley-9002.gif)
(Well, true honesty demands me to admit that I might just be exercising at this point. I think it's a bit of both).
The notion that I pick the definition I like is basiically the opposite of what I do. I very consciously sought the words as they were being used (i,e adjective, noun, etc..) and examined every definition excluding ones that were entirely field specific (such as mathematical definitions, for example). The point being, that I most likely performed
less selection than most people would. I attempt denotative literalism. It is through comparing literal interpretations that I determined rational should include Feeling. Indeed, Nocapszy did concede that much.
But he says that the "essence" of Feeling is the same. Essence is one of those words that always treads dangerously close to gobilty-gook, but I figure I understand the point. Feeling is the same, it has only had the classifcation around it shifted a little. This happens with species of animals all the time. the species certainly doesn't change in 5 years, merely, zoological taxonomist change the class it is in. And yes, that is all I have done, but that doesn't make my point insignificant. One need only imagine, based on the definitions I cited, what it would
really mean if Feeling were actually irrational. To say such a thing would be highly misleading, and so it is unacceptable.
The statement that Feeling cannot make good decisions is questionable unto itself. There are however, for too many ways for me to look at this statement to bother innumerating, especially since the subject has really been about rational, and it's relation to Feeling, not so much the singular merit of Feeling.
The paragraph with all the punctuation marks obviously goes after a strawman.
Sounds like you're really
grasping at straws to use that expression in this thread.
Just use the emoticon, F.
I do not want a totally relativistic vocabulary at all.
Oddly enough, your conceptual dislike of a relativistic vocabulary is counteracted by your practical favor of one.
Maybe, in the long run, the change of shit of language does mean that definitions are eternally relative in some sense, but that's a slow process, and what I do at the moment is more important.
Here's where I pull a
BW and say "I do not understand the relevance at all!"
All I do is cite the dictionary, whatever state it is in at the time.
And here's where I, unlike
BW discover the relevance, and proceed without confusion.
True enough, but not all dictionaries are consistent.
Ah but no matter that -- I'm sure an honest, progress oriented type like yourself wouldn't
dare deceive by searching through more than one to find the definition he wanted for his argument. And further, I doubt he'd be unwilling to concede when said search yielded results opposing his claim.
Nary a mind this point.
We'll carry on.
In some cases, it does result in words becoming more broad than people are using them, as with this instance of the word rational.
I suppose you mean "words becoming more broad than people
ought to be using them" since the becoming is an act of the usage.
That is, the way you've constructed this sentence is impossible.
Yes, I believe I made this very point in my last post -- about stretching the meaning of the word to include more.
But more often, I find that words are more narrow than people commonly use them, and because of this, I have received far more accusation in my life of being nit-picky and exacting with language, than of being a relativist.
So then the last paragraph is to clear your name.
Again you make the mistake of assuming my attack was on your character rather than your points.
Please keep this in mind -- I'm sure it's difficult, but just do me this favor: Any needle you might feel is only aside. The main point and putting you down are not even incidental to one another -- I just like doing both, and it's easiest to do them simultaneously.
But that's no reason to spend half your post complaining or correcting me about it when there are more prevalent things to discuss.
The consistent case is, I do what the dictionary says. Why? Because it is the only thing we have for denotative meaning. If some people on this forum would like to take up the difficult task of establishing an accessible Typology dictionary, I wish them the best of luck.
You might do a search for the P and J muddling.
It's comprised almost entirely of splitting hairs on the humiliating linguistic over/misuse surrounding typology.
And of course, like the gold-old finisher, judging my accuracy on pre-suppostions about my character or motive is fallacious.
You may, with some experimentation, find that the greater portion of all knowledge is discovered by action on "pre-suppositions" (presumptions),
be they accurate or not. I might not have you exactly figured out, but I am
certain that you're more likely to invent something to 'correct' what I have to say simply because you don't like me than you are to address my post as it is.
The rest of the post is smoke (or perhaps more like steam). He is inaccurate in the assumption he has made about why or how I go about doing things. But the inaccuray of it is not as importat as the irrelevance of it. Practically speaking, it would take mutliple long posts to elaborate on everything about myself that he has commented or questioned, and none of it would be argumentatively pertinent.
Well, none of this was argumentatively pertinent either, but you went right ahead and posted it anyway.
We get it Poriferan: You have high standards.
Now the rest of my post wasn't smoke, it's just similarly relevant as your post. That is, it's not.
I'm just really getting sick of your ceaseless, and usually incorrect attempts to detract the value of anything I say.
Instead of sending you a private message, I decided to deal with it here. Context would really help a situation like this one.
I can see quite plainly that you're irrevocable hatred for me is more hap-hazard than a blindfold while driving.
You obviously don't want to be any more civil than I do, and LOLably, you're just as 'bad'.
I'll be taking congratulations for bringing the poriferan "down to my level" in the lobby. Or the graveyard, or something.