[falco10291029]

I agree, arguments=fun. Especially since this most likely won't end until one of us gets tired of it or a mod closes it.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

But since that definition is invalid too, it was in fact meaningless.

Look, a sentence is not an atom. It is a string of irreducible lexigraphical symbols, the definitions of which determine the meaning of the whole. A sentence's meaning is derived purely from its composition; it cannot be imbued through some definitive process.

That definition wasn't invalid, I got it off of an official dictionary, and quoted it, did you not see that? Define can eman explain, as the quote showed before, and you can explain a sentence. You are just too stubborn to look at things past what they seem to mean at first glance.

Hardly. From 'penguin', we get 'bird'. From 'bird' we get 'animal'. From 'human' we get 'mammal'. From 'mammal' we get 'animal'. If we're stupid enough to treat each relation as one of equivalence then we reach the aforementioned conclusion.

You may get those words, but you aren't looking at the full definition, I on the other hand, am.

What a convincing counter-argument

Thanks lol

Aren't you the one arguing for flexible, subjective meaning?

Find some way that criticism is defined as fact, like how i have shown you definitions, and I would consider it to be within flexibility.

You can comprehend all expressions of English? Also, my disagreement was with the claim that you can comprehend and use the language to a satisfactory level. Obviously, however, this standard is relative.

No I can't understand every one of them, but i doubt you can either. The level that i comprehend and use it is sastifactory to a 10th grade level (probably higher looking at my peers), which means that my comprehension doesn't deem "Criticism"

You believe that 'to miss' and 'to not own' are equivalent?

Even using to own; "In the category of just you, you don't own one brain" would mean that you don't own a single brain within the category of yourself, which would be the same as You are missing a brain, since both imply that is just you that is being talked about. Don't make me hurl definitions of missing and such at you now .

Nor did I claim to. I can, however, determine relevance.

relevance is in the eye of the beholder (look at Lance, he claims anything is irrelevant), and is basically opinion in that matter. What may appear relevant to one isn't relevant to another, therefore, your idea of what we are arguing has no effect on what I think we are arguing about.