Flag problems?

[p2p_Sir_Link]

I think Falco is having a problem grasping the complexity of your education, Kai.
So I've made a book, Kai for Idiots.

Falco: He is referring to every brain on the planet. You don't own any of them. Population = 6 Billion
Funds = 6 Billion.
The wording in your sentence, says brain you don't have. There are 6 billion brains I don't possess. There are 6 million brains he doesn't possess. kthxbai.

[falco10291029]

No, I am educating you. Sentences are not defined. To suggest otherwise belies a deep failure to understand the concept of definitions.

de·fine ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-fn)
v. de·fined, de·fin·ing, de·fines
v. tr.

1.To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example).
2.To describe the nature or basic qualities of; explain: define the properties of a new drug; a study that defines people according to their median incomes.

Are you saying it isn't possible to explain a sentence? Again, you don't look at other definitions of a word, so you mess up.

You seem confused. Insults can be directed at any person, regardless of whatever skills they may possess.

In any case, this kind of so-called realisation wouldn't have any relation to a person's ability to communicate in a language. As for being a better linguist than me? Laughable. Please report to this URL.

The only thing laughable here is your argument skills. I meant an insult based on skills, not overal;l insults. You are making fun of my ability to use the english langauge, when obviously i comprehend and use it just fine. Perhaps I am not better than you at it, but if you think an insult holds any validity when targeted at someone that obviously doesn't have that feature you shouldn't even be in this argument at all, since it's over an insult.

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Same goes for the one in your hasty amendment.

Hardly. That is the exact definition I would need for the insult to make sense. Are you sure you read the definition i posted??

This isn't even relevant until you show that our disagreement stems from conflicting definitions.

Ah pulling off a Lance. Our definitions are conflicting because you claim mine doesn't exist, therefore that makes it totally relevant.

[Dach]

I like how what falco thinks he's saying is different from what he is actually saying.

Dude, seriously, verbal articulation is a large part of communication. What you think you are saying may not be the same as what others think you are saying. What they think you are saying is the defining factor in communication, is it not? So I really do not see why you would venture to stand by your obviously misinterpreted (by way of intended meaning) phrase anyway.

P.S. How many <insert random object here> don't you have? <- how would you interpret this? It has no implied meaning, therefore the answer can only be the number of how many of that object is in existance. Not some arbitrary number of how many you would normally have (which is incorrect anyway since you still don't have any of the other existing objects).

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

Are you saying it isn't possible to explain a sentence?

No, because 'define' is not the same as 'explain' in this context. You are aware of the concept of context, yes?

If we wanted to work from dictionary definitions alone then we could quite easily argue that the word 'human' is equivalent to 'penguin', just by following a chain of approximations. But that's not how language is supposed to be used.

I meant an insult based on skills, not overal;l insults

Still doesn't make any sense, bub. Anybody can insult anybody else based on any criteria they like. Your rule does not hold up.

You are making fun of my ability to use the english langauge

I'd say I'm merely criticising it, in a situation where criticism is due and pertinent.

obviously i comprehend and use it just fine

That is still up for debate.

Perhaps I am not better than you at it

Perhaps? Revisit the URL.

Hardly. That is the exact definition I would need for the insult to make sense

Incorrect. By that definition, it would equate to this:

There is precisely one brain that you do not own.

This is patently false. There are over six billion.

Ah pulling off a Lance. Our definitions are conflicting because you claim mine doesn't exist

No, I hold that we are both working under the same definition for 'have'. You are simply misusing it.

[falco10291029]

First of all, as for the third party arguers, i have easily argued those points in other posts, don't waste my time. Now for Kai:

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

No, because 'define' is not the same as 'explain' in this context. You are aware of the concept of context, yes?

If we wanted to work from dictionary definitions alone then we could quite easily argue that the word 'human' is equivalent to 'penguin', just by following a chain of approximations. But that's not how language is supposed to be used.

In the context i used when saying define the sentence, it couldn't mean anything but explain it (out of definitions given). The way you think you could make human be equal to penguin isn't true, as there is no possible chain to get to there.

Still doesn't make any sense, bub. Anybody can insult anybody else based on any criteria they like. Your rule does not hold up.

You don't understand what I was saying, but otherwise, this matter is unimportant in the final outcome of this argument, so I won't even begin to argue here.

I'd say I'm merely criticising it, in a situation where criticism is due and pertinent.

Well since criticism is based on opinion, and opinion means nothing at all in this type of argument, it means nothing. Let's forget this and move on.

That is still up for debate.

Not really, depending on what you would mean by comprehension, and a common one would mean "understands it". I Understand English just fine, and could care less about your opinion in that matter.

Perhaps? Revisit the URL.

I didn't even go there, I don't want to waste my time on what is most likely a pointless insult on your part.

Incorrect. By that definition, it would equate to this:

There is precisely one brain that you do not own.

This is patently false. There are over six billion.

Actually, by that definition, it would mean more like:

In the category of just you, You're missing one brain.

which in turn means:
You Don't have a brain.

No, I hold that we are both working under the same definition for 'have'. You are simply misusing it.

You cannot decide what I am arguing. I am arguing over the definition. Anything you say would not matter since I choose my own thoughts and output.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

In the context i used when saying define the sentence, it couldn't mean anything but explain it

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.

The way you think you could make human be equal to penguin isn't true

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 don't understand what I was saying

What a convincing counter-argument

since criticism is based on opinion, and opinion means nothing at all in this type of argument, it means nothing

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

Not really, depending on what you would mean by comprehension

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.

I didn't even go there

How saddening. You might have learned something.

by that definition, it would mean more like:

In the category of just you, You're missing one brain

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

You cannot decide what I am arguing

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

[Slash-P2P]

Kaimetsu. Why do you go into a bunch of threads and start arguments?

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by Slash-P2P

Kaimetsu. Why do you go into a bunch of threads and start arguments?

Because arguments are awesome.

[Slash-P2P]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

Because arguments are awesome.

It's rather annoying. Start a Graal Debate thread and stick to it

[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.

[Dach]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

First of all, as for the third party arguers, i have easily argued those points in other posts, don't waste my time. Now for Kai:

That's what you think, thus the problem with arguing with self-deluded people such as yourself. Do try to read through and understand what is being said to you before you attempt to defy it.

Originally Posted by Slash-P2P

It's rather annoying.

You don't have to read this thread.. Although I agree, but for reasons other than what you seem to find annoying

[Kaimetsu]

Originally Posted by Slash-P2P

It's rather annoying

I think you will get over it.

Originally Posted by falco10291029

That definition wasn't invalid

I thought you said you were capable of comprehending English? Context, man. Context. You gave two definitions. One is applicable to abstract concepts, such as words, whereas the other is geared towards the technically-incorrect process of defining real-world objects. A sentence is not a real-world object.

you aren't looking at the full definition, I on the other hand, am

This from the guy that just plucked one word out of a dictionary definition in a vain attempt to support his case?

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're not even making sense here, man. "Within" flexibility? Flexibility is not a container. How is the definition of criticism even relevant? We are talking about the intersubjective meaning of written text.

No I can't understand every one of them, but i doubt you can either

Indeed. I am merely attempting to help you understand that these scales are relative. The descriptor "just fine" is individually meaningless.

The level that i comprehend and use it is sastifactory to a 10th grade level [...], which means that my comprehension doesn't deem "Criticism"

Firstly, you don't know what 'deem' means. You probably should have used something like 'warrant'.
Secondly, you are not being judged relative to others of your age group. You are being judged relative to a hypothetical competent wordsmith - one that can confidently use and understand a relatively wide range of language without error.

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

That's kind of garbled, but okay. Your problem here is that you didn't specify scope in the original text.

relevance is in the eye of the beholder

Not really. Relevance is a conceptual relationship just like any other - one which can be established and defended if a debate requires it. It occasionally dips into subjectivity, but only because of the alogical nature of human thought.

Point: If you cannot make any chain of logical relations between the original subject and the one you're discussing, it can be said that you are deviating from relevance. I hereby make the challenge.

[Lance]

Originally Posted by falco10291029

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"

I love this paragraph. I really do.

It is also worth noting, falco of the many numbers, that you should not accuse Kai of 'pulling a Lance'. Unless, of course, 'pulling a Lance' means 'using logic', in which case I feel fairly awesome.

[Slash-P2P]

Originally Posted by Dach

You don't have to read this thread.. Although I agree, but for reasons other than what you seem to find annoying

I saw its annoying because when I read a thread, there is usually some information that appeals to me. I would rather see peoples input on topics rather than people yelling at each other over everything.

[falco10291029]

Originally Posted by Kaimetsu

I thought you said you were capable of comprehending English? Context, man. Context. You gave two definitions. One is applicable to abstract concepts, such as words, whereas the other is geared towards the technically-incorrect process of defining real-world objects. A sentence is not a real-world object.

Yes, two definitions, one of which works. Context is how the reader looks at it. That same context can be changed if said reader looks at the sentence differently. Stressing parts of the words or reading at a different pace can make the context look a whole lot different.

his from the guy that just plucked one word out of a dictionary definition in a vain attempt to support his case?

No, i took the whole definition. For one who claims to understand english so well, you should have seen that.

You're not even making sense here, man. "Within" flexibility? Flexibility is not a container. How is the definition of criticism even relevant? We are talking about the intersubjective meaning of written text.

I agree i worded that wrong, but you can see what I amm getting at. You are the one who stated that the flexibility didn't extend to what i had, meaning that it would have to be a defined space. ALso, stop only looking at that post, and take into account what you and me have put in previous ones. YOU started talking about criticism, YOU
are the one who talked about how what you said was flexible:

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

As seen above. Once you say something, it doesn't justwash away and any response from there become irrelevant, it sticks.

Firstly, you don't know what 'deem' means. You probably should have used something like 'warrant'.
Secondly, you are not being judged relative to others of your age group. You are being judged relative to a hypothetical competent wordsmith - one that can confidently use and understand a relatively wide range of language without error.

In that context, deem meant "to subject to", which is a valid definition of it. Aren't you the one arguing about context?
Secondly, if being compared to saiud wordmith, I still am not so low as to be criticized. My range of the english langauge is above average (for EVERYONE), and my usage very rarely contains any errors (unless you count spelling for quick typing, hehe).

That's kind of garbled, but okay. Your problem here is that you didn't specify scope in the original text.

What I was saying by that, is what it means if you use the proper definitions for what is implied by it.

"If I had a dollar for every brain you didn't have, I'd have one dollar" becomes equal or acceptebly similar in this way:
First: didn't have:
based on earlier definitions and argument it can be turned into "(In the category of just you) you don't own", making the insult

"If I had a dollar for every brain (in the category of just you) that you don't own, I would have one dollar."

By taking the if I had a dollar.....I'd have one dollar, it makes the if statement true, making the insult:
"(In the category of just you) you don't own one brain",
which taking parentheses out and replacing with a comma afterwards makes it:
"In the category of just you, you don't own one brain"


Therefore, my insult makes sense if it's looked at the correct way.

Point: If you cannot make any chain of logical relations between the original subject and the one you're discussing, it can be said that you are deviating from relevance. I hereby make the challenge.

I can, I said that i was arguing the definition of have, and you said i wasn't. You said i wasn't because what i said was relevant to that argument. But looking at everything i put in,like the definitions and such, I was obviously arguing over how you would look at have, and which definition to use.