The way I understand it is that concepts have meaning, and it’s not a matter of using a correct concept, but of using a concept correctly. — Noah Te Stroete

I think that that's just saying something else based loosely on the gobbledygook that he produced, but it's good that you're able to make sense from nonsense.

This makes sense to me. — Noah Te Stroete

Alright, then rephrase it in plain English.

You mentioned one failed business venture but didn’t mention any of the hundreds of successes. That’s clear suppression of contrary evidence. — NOS4A2

What nonsense. Tell me, how can I mention details of which I do not know? If you think that that's suppression, then you must not know what the word "suppression" actually means. I never claimed to know about these "hundreds of successes" which you allege of Trump, but don't actually provide any evidence of. I told you what I do know, which is that all of these alleged successes are in fact failures relative to the amount of wealth he would have amassed if he had simply invested in Index Funds, which you yourself say is easy to do. So, explain to me why the smart thing to have done (if he's too incompetent to make a greater profit through the actual running of his business, which turned out to be true) wouldn't have been to invest in Index Funds. You haven't actually answered that, just dismissed it.

I can give you one example. The belief, now widespread, that Trump called neo-Nazis “very fine people”. This has already been thoroughly refuted, but no less still persists in the ant-Trumpist mind. — NOS4A2

No, that's not an example at all in your favour, it is a baseless assertion. It does nothing, except count against Trump, and adds to the evidence against him, ethically. It is well known, and a matter of public record, that in reference to the Charlottesville massacre, he said, and I quote, "You also had some very fine people on both sides". On both sides! For crying out loud, what a scumbag. And you're part of the problem by mindlessly defending his despicable and calculated remarks, which were clearly a dog whistle to all of his racist and Neo-Nazi supporters.

I am always happy to learn. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Then why haven't you learnt that no one cares about your stupid religious cult nonsense?

Being an effective rhetorician does. Late night hosts wouldn't be late night hosts, or wouldn't keep their job for long, if they weren't effective rhetoricians, and Hitler, Martin Luther King Jr., and to a much lesser extent Trump, are all known for being effective rhetoricians, especially the first two, so there's nothing to even argue over here, as you don't have a leg to stand on.

And regarding your exaggerated claim about "suppression" of evidence, you haven't shown that at all. I'm just telling you what I've found out from various sources, and I even requested evidence from you, so your allegation of "suppression" is ludicrous. Moreover, it's funny how you seem to have an answer for everything: apologetics much?

Are you going to excuse his "pussy grabbing" remark, too? Let me guess, just locker-room talk, right?

I’m not so sure about that. Not very many stupid billionaires out there. — NOS4A2

He inherited his wealth from Daddy Trump, managed to somehow bankrupt a casino, and would be richer if he had just invested in index funds.

The guy is pretty stupid, as clips like the one where he waits in the walkway between the backstage area and the stage, despite his name having been called out, and the one where he keeps signing copies of the same contract, instead of passing them along to the other heads of state to sign, asking which one is the one that matters, until Trudeau sets him straight, exemplify his stupidity. How embarrassing! He is as bad as George W., if not worse!

"I know all the best words".

"I don't repeat myself. I don't repeat myself. I do not repeat myself".

Legendary buffoonery.

Are you effected by their rhetoric? What effects does their rhetoric have on you? — NOS4A2

Of course I am. Hundreds of people are, all over the world. They are famous (or infamous in the case of Hitler) rhetoricians. Don't be absurd.

There isn't much to be suppressed though, is there?

Of course there is. Every gaffe or piece of wrong think is usually one or two words torn from thousands and then sensationalized. It’s quite a lucrative racket, but it leaves people uninformed. — NOS4A2

To be clear, I was referring to your mention of the alleged suppressed evidence of the alleged success of Donald Trump. Can you give me some examples of evidence of his alleged success?

He has succeeded in bringing the worst out of those people who support him. He has succeeded in drastically lowering the bar of what's considered acceptable behaviour for a president of the US. He has succeeded in igniting racial tensions.

I will grant you that he has succeeded in these respects.

Well. There you go. — frank

Okay, I'll elaborate. It comes across more as philosophy-sounding artistic literature, than an attempt to state the truth in a clear manner with accompanying explanations for each point.

For every single sentence, I'm left thinking, "Why should I accept that?", "In what way?", "How so?", "What does that even mean?", "How come I can think of counterexamples?".

Was this one of those pieces of writing where you think to yourself, "Yeah, that sounds good... kind of Nietzschean...", but in actual fact is full of holes? Kind of like a fortress which looks sturdy from a distance, but on closer inspection is found to be made of cardboard.

Harsh, but true.

There is not a "correct meaning of the word 'chair.'" — Terrapin Station

He also said outlandish things like this, and still hasn't conceded, to my knowledge. If you said it out loud, people would laugh.

There is a correct meaning of the word "chair", and we all know what it is.

Terrapin Station has been refuted. He has lost the debate - sorry, "conversation". And that's that! :party:

Rhetoric has no effect beyond a slight expelling of breath and sound. — NOS4A2

Hitler? Martin Luther King Jr.? :brow:

All that anti-Trump rhetoric on late night, much of it cherry picked from twitter, may work wonders on those who require an “applause” sign to remind them when to laugh. But they preach ant-Trumpism as a one-sided story, suppressing all evidence to the contrary. — NOS4A2

There isn't much to be suppressed though, is there?

Concepts aren't correct or incorrect. — Terrapin Station

Well, it started with claims like this, where he makes a trivial point where he doesn't seem to consider the importance of context, which changes everything, and results in a completely different answer, the exact opposite of the above.

After a lengthy discussion, he then basically just abandoned that position and began asking distracting questions and bringing up vaguely related points.

Maybe he changed his mind, but didn't want to explicitly acknowledge that.

I don't agree with a single word you just said.

Too illiterate for me to bother responding to. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Haha! Illiterate? Ironically, it's a statement phrased in the style you'd expect to find in early learning literature.

A is for apple as B is for...?

You're interested in debating. I'm interested in having conversations. — Terrapin Station

No, it doesn't matter what you call it, the problem remains, and you ought to take responsibility for your part in the breakdown of the conversation we were having.

Do you see nothing unethical about suddenly changing the subject when things seemed to be coming together, and then adamantly refusing to return to what we were talking about?

Re an issue like this, this isn't something I'm going to think that I'm wrong about. — Terrapin Station

Big surprise there. That answers my question.

So debating with me about it, as if I'm going to change my mind, because you're going to present something to me that I hadn't thought about before, is probably going to be futile. — Terrapin Station

That's not even the problem! You are perfectly welcome to stick to your view, but when drawn into a line of questioning about that view, you bolt and change the subject. I can't get anywhere with you if you do that. There's no resolution. No conclusion. No outcome. Just a broken down discussion. You're like a slippery eel, wriggling out of my grasp.

Also re conceding. How is that something that is done in a conversation where people are trying to understand each other?

Conceding is something you do in a competition. — Terrapin Station

I can see through what you're doing, you know. You're suggesting a bad motive on my part. It's not a competition, but there's more to this than simply trying to understand each other. In any disagreement, there is often a right and a wrong. Is it that you can't bear to be in the wrong? Conceding is the right and proper thing to do when you realise you're mistaken in some respect in a debate, discussion, conversation, or whatever you want to call this. But you can't concede if you avoid the subject altogether, even when it is repeatedly brought to your attention. And that's the real problem: evasion. Deliberate evasion. And it's even worse when you make excuses.

It's supposed to be a conversation where we're trying to understand each other, no?

Why would you even look at that as something where "red herrings" could be introduced? — Terrapin Station

Why on earth would it not be a situation where red herrings can be introduced? It's exactly that kind of situation.

I've lost hope that I'll get any real answers from you about why you do this, or why you seem to think that it's acceptable, so I'll tell you what I think. I think that you can't bear to concede, so when backed into a corner, you change the subject instead. I put effort into arguing my side, asking the right questions, but it amounts to nothing, because of your eventual evasion before I can pin you down.

It just depends on how the conversation is going, if I think it's going. I was writing some longer posts, but this one fell apart when you ignored points I was making, ignored questions I was asking, and then after that, insisted that I answer something in a way that you preferred, or you wouldn't play. — Terrapin Station

You often try to turn it back on me, as though I'm the one in the wrong. Try to think about why I did that. You backed me into a corner. You gave me no choice. Why should I tolerate red herrings? If you have any sense of ethics, you should be able to see why that's not a fair approach to discussion. I traced the red herring back to you. The trouble began with you, not me.

Gnosis, Gnostic, root word for agnostic.

Need I say more? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Gnostic is to agnostic as theism is to atheism. :brow:

In my opinion discussions don't work when they're not easygoing/friendly, when people are trying to prove the other wrong rather than trying to understand them, and when one person gets too controlling. Hence why I make the moves I make when any of that stuff happens. — Terrapin Station

That's interesting, given that one of your biggest problems is that you get too controlling. You simply must be in control of the direction which the discussion takes, even when I object, justifiably, on the grounds that you've suddenly changed the subject before we've resolved what we were previously discussing, and even when I persistently and forcefully try to get us back on track.

How many discussions have we had which have ended in this way? Because you refuse to play ball? Because I give up?

I agree it's boils down to psychology and social science in essence. But then you still have many (not all, it's not a uniform group in their thinking) transgenders insisting that they "really are" a woman/man. And that is a metaphysical claim, which they have (to my knowledge) never fully explained. — Artemis

Those claims can be categorised along with many religious, supernatural, and conspiracy theory claims. They can be filed away in the "special cabinet", i.e. the dustbin.

If you have any resources that do explain it, I'd appreciate it if you provided them here instead of just waving nebulously into the wilds of the interwebs. :wink:

Oh, and I have met many transgender and gender fluid people. The latter tend to make more sensible claims, in my opinion. But apparently it's not good form to ask them to explain transgenderism. It's considered "questioning their existence." Which is unphilosophical, but, hey, that's what fora like this one are for. — Artemis

Nope, no resources which explain what can't be truly explained in that way. That wouldn't be an explanation, it would be a story.

Interesting experience. I've experienced the opposite. I've been told that they'd rather people just ask them directly instead of staring and being awkward around them, although I think I can also recall one of my transgender friends saying that it can get annoying, which is understandable. I've met both male to female, and female to male. I also know someone who might now identify as gender neutral after the transformation didn't exactly work out so well, and I know someone who doesn't identify as transgender, but rather as an occasional cross dresser.

A discussion between two people should be quid pro quo. What I've learnt from engaging you in discussion is that you don't care about that, even when it becomes a problem.

Of course I'm not just saying that. Haven't you been listening? I'm saying that when that's what's meant, and when you interpret that meaning accordingly, then that's correct, that's successful communication. Why the hell is that so difficult for you to a) understand, and b) acknowledge? You haven't given any sensible response to that.
— S

Can't you successfully communicate with someone using the word "correct" to refer to "a puppy" once they tell you that?

And they can successfully communicate with you using the conventional definition if they're familiar with it, etc. — Terrapin Station

This is a clearcut example of a red herring. Instead of answering my question, he replies with a question of his own, and makes an irrelevant secondary point.

@Terrapin Station does this all the time.

It's ridiculous that Terrapin is telling me, of all people, to keep my posts short.

I'm tired of your excuses. Take responsibility for once.

And I'm still not going to read/respond to a bunch of different points/issues at a time when one is in the mood to argue with me. — Terrapin Station

You mean you want to ignore the main thrust of the lengthy debate we were having in order to pursue your red herring.

You do this all the time. Just as we're getting somewhere - Bam! - a red herring, and then there's no going back for you.

It's not funny, it's a stain on your reputation, and ignominious way of ending a debate.

Right, it's reached that point again where you are effectively conceding the debate due to deliberate trouble making, in this case, not putting any effort into actually reading what's being said, and wilful evasion.

First, it's not a digression. It's what I'm talking about. — Terrapin Station

It's both. The digression can be traced back to this exchange between us. I clarified my position to you, and did not get a proper reply from you. I am still waiting for that reply.

Stop being difficult and answer the bloody question.

But then you're not just saying that the dictionary or conventional definition of "correct" is "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth."
— Terrapin Station

Of course I'm not just saying that. Haven't you been listening? I'm saying that when that's what's meant, and when you interpret that meaning accordingly, then that's correct, that's successful communication. Why the hell is that so difficult for you to a) understand, and b) acknowledge? You haven't given any sensible response to that. — S

Also, here's more evidence that you're a bad listener. I said the following in that same post:

After they tell you, "I define 'correct' as 'a puppy,'" you're saying that the person needs to follow the convention.
— Terrapin Station

Only if they want to understand me! — S

And yet you repeat essentially the same point I already addressed here in a later reply:

Why should someone adhere to the consensus usage when they tell you they're using some odd definition, like "I define 'correct' as 'a puppy'"? — Terrapin Station

If I'm using it in accordance with the consensus usage, and they want understand me, then they should drop - at least temporary - their own idiotic made-up definition, and adopt instead the consensus usage.

You began a digression before answering the most important point of disagreement between us. I want you to give a clear and direct answer to that key question before I humour you any further on secondary points which you'd rather pursue instead.

Just answer the key question in bold. What's the problem? Stop evading.

I'm not even going to read your reply, because it is apparently a response to your own digression, which you seem to want to continue. Enough with the red herrings. Answer the key question in bold.

So "correct" has no normative or prescriptive weight in your usage here? — Terrapin Station

What do you mean by that? Why wouldn't it?

And besides, please don't create diversions. It feels as though we are on the verge of finally getting somewhere. All you have to do us come out and clearly and directly address this key point that I've put to you:

I'm saying that when that's what's meant, and when you interpret that meaning accordingly, then that's correct, that's successful communication. Why the hell is that so difficult for you to a) understand, and b) acknowledge? You haven't given any sensible response to that. — S

So, do you a) understand that, and b) acknowledge it to be so?

Can't you successfully communicate with someone using the word "correct" to refer to "a puppy" once they tell you that? — Terrapin Station

Yes, but so what? I never at any point said that conventional usage is the only possible standard of correctness. I very clearly said that it is the default standard.

And they can successfully communicate with you using the conventional definition if they're familiar with it, etc. — Terrapin Station

Yes, and again, so what? Is this the point where you backtrack after all of this apparent disagreement? It wouldn't be the first time you've done that.

It certainly feels like that with Terrapin Station at times like this! :lol:

But then you're not just saying that the dictionary or conventional definition of "correct" is "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth." — Terrapin Station

Of course I'm not just saying that. Haven't you been listening? I'm saying that when that's what's meant, and when you interpret that meaning accordingly, then that's correct, that's successful communication. Why the hell is that so difficult for you to a) understand, and b) acknowledge? You haven't given any sensible response to that.

After they tell you, "I define 'correct' as 'a puppy,'" you're saying that the person needs to follow the convention. — Terrapin Station

Only if they want to understand me!

Jesus H. Christ.

And if you're not willing, you're incorrect? — Terrapin Station

In a sense, yes. Like Baden said, we're not dealing in absolutes. So, under the working assumption that willingness in this context indicates correctness, then obviously you would indeed be incorrect if you're not willing.

You're wrong because your position fails, and the collective position of the rest of us works. It is superior. It makes sense. Yours does not.

You're not understanding something I've explained many times:

It's correct that the definition of "correct" above is "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth."

It's correct that that's a conventional definition.

That doesn't imply that it's correct to define "correct" as "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth." — Terrapin Station

Are you insane? I'm not failing to understand your irrelevant points. It is correct per my usage, and per common usage, and per a matching interpretation from you. Any mismatched interpretation is incorrect. That's how the rest of us use the words "correct" and "incorrect" in situations like this, and you haven't provided any sensible reason for refusing to use them likewise. All you've done is express an irrational unwillingness to join in, due to some childish aversion to the notion of conformity, which to you is some sort of bogeyman.

It's a scope issue. The distinction is similar to the bound/unbound distinction.

In the one case, we're making a claim about what happens to be the case re popular usage, re what a dictionary says, etc. "Correct" is bound to those claims qua those claims--that is, what popular usage is, what the dictionary says, etc.

In the other case, it's an attempt to make an unbound claim--"It's not correct to define 'correct' as 'a type of puppy'" is not saying, "That's not what the dictionary says" or "That's not the conventional definition."

And in the unbound claim, there's an implication that one SHOULD follow conventions. That it's right to follow conventions. — Terrapin Station

You're completely off track there. This is a simple matter of whether you're willing to use a word, "correct", like the rest of us, in a situation which makes sense, or whether you're going to continue to resist on no reasonable basis, given that your arguments miss the point.

If you've interpreted the above as I meant it, which is also how the words are commonly used in that context, then you've correctly understood me - you've ascertained the correct meaning - and if not, then you haven't - you've made an error.

And if as per S this all boils down to some pedantic notion regarding the term "correct", it really has been a waste fo time. — Baden

That's all it is, I'm sure.

Again, the conventional definition of "correct" is NOT "conventional." — Terrapin Station

The first dictionary definition I found fits the situation I described just fine:

correct
"1. free from error; in accordance with fact or truth".

If your interpretation matches the intended meaning (that being a matter of fact or truth with which you would be in accordance with) then that's an instance of successful communication whereby you would have understood me correctly, not misunderstood me, which would mean an erroneous interpretation.

I shouldn't even have to explain that, as it's obvious. You're not a child, so why are you acting like one?

Communication simply depends on being able to understand others, which is a matter of being able to assign meanings to their utterances (say) in a manner that's coherent, consistent with their other past and future utterances, etc.

There's no need to bring the idea of "correct" into it.

Re the notion of definitions being correct or not, they're conventional or not. It's not incorrect to be conventional. The conventional definition of "correct" isn't "conventional." — Terrapin Station

I find it really silly that you don't want to use the word "correct" like the rest of us, even though it makes no practical difference. When you interpret the meaning of these words in sync with their intended meaning, and/or in accordance with the English language as per the relevant dictionary definition, that's what the rest of us call "correct". You can call it whatever you want, or nothing at all, but that would be silly and make no meaningful difference.