Perhaps it is accurate. Unfortunately, you've done nothing to justify a claim that it is-and thus you are question begging.
The accuracy is blatantly obvious to everyone but yourself and yet, you still continue playing semantical games. Mayhaps English isn't your first language hence the opaqueness? It would be preferable to believe there's a struggle with an online translator since anything else would point to the unflattering.
This explains some things for me. Thanks.
What does it explain to you? You're welcome.
In the interest of fairness, I'll properly address Jenaphor's previous attempt at justification, which she has declined to clarify:
Declined? It appears you've stipulatively defined my actions.
I haven't the faintest idea what this phrase means.
Provided are a number of definitions from
an authoritive source.. In the interests of brevity, not all words have been defined, only the ones that might be considered challenging to you. Hope this helps with comprehension.
------------------------------------------------
S: objectivity,
objectiveness (judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices)
------------------------------------------------
Noun
- S: flow, flowing (the motion characteristic of fluids (liquids or gases))
- S: flow, flow rate, rate of flow (the amount of fluid that flows in a given time)
- S: flow, stream (the act of flowing or streaming; continuous progression)
- S: flow (any uninterrupted stream or discharge)
- S: stream, flow (something that resembles a flowing stream in moving continuously) "a stream of people emptied from the terminal"; "the museum had planned carefully for the flow of visitors"
- S: stream, flow, current (dominant course (suggestive of running water) of successive events or ideas) "two streams of development run through American history"; "stream of consciousness"; "the flow of thought"; "the current of history"
- S: menstruation, menses, menstruum, catamenia, period, flow (the monthly discharge of blood from the uterus of nonpregnant women from puberty to menopause) "the women were sickly and subject to excessive menstruation"; "a woman does not take the gout unless her menses be stopped"--Hippocrates; "the semen begins to appear in males and to be emitted at the same time of life that the catamenia begin to flow in females"--Aristotle
Verb
- S: (v) flow, flux (move or progress freely as if in a stream) "The crowd flowed out of the stadium"
- S: (v) run, flow, feed, course (move along, of liquids) "Water flowed into the cave"; "the Missouri feeds into the Mississippi"
- S: (v) flow (cause to flow) "The artist flowed the washes on the paper"
- S: (v) flow (be abundantly present) "The champagne flowed at the wedding"
- S: (v) hang, fall, flow (fall or flow in a certain way) "This dress hangs well"; "Her long black hair flowed down her back"
- S: (v) flow (cover or swamp with water)
- S: (v) menstruate, flow (undergo menstruation) "She started menstruating at the age of 11"
------------------------------------------------
Noun
- S: logic (the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference)
- S: logic (reasoned and reasonable judgment) "it made a certain kind of logic"
- S: logic (the principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation) "economic logic requires it"; "by the logic of war"
- S: logic (the system of operations performed by a computer that underlies the machine's representation of logical operations)
- S: logic, logical system, system of logic (a system of reasoning)
--------------------------------------------------
It makes no sense to "disagree" with a stipulative definition, since they are neither right nor wrong. At most, one could disagree that a stipulative definition is useful, but no more. As said earlier:
Relevant. A more authoritative
source :
I see. So if I were to stipulatively define "Helios" as "He who uses obfuscation and semantics to avoid admitting that his beliefs and understanding about Feminism are irrational and deliberately ignorant", this would be acceptable? After all, it makes no sense to "disagree" with a stipulative definition, since they're neither right or wrong. At most, one could disagree that a stipulative definition is useful, but no more...
One wonders why several members of Typology Central seem to take such exception to this.
I don't what it means to believe in a definition of a word. I did not interpret the term "generic Feminism"; I (stipulatively) defined it.
Neither definition is "accurate", because it is inappropriate to talk of "accuracy" in this context: you've simply provided a lexical definition of "strawberry" as well as a stipulative one. I don't what it means for a definition to "surround" something.
Refer to my above response.
I've no idea what's being said here. It seems to be some sort of conclusion, which, given the quality of the foregoing attempt at justification, is probably inaccurate.
In order to suggest inaccuracy, it's necessary to comprehend the prior.