I only proclaim from above because your angel wings were clipped. I suspect that is why you continue to harbour some resentment against me, since your mod status was removed with prejudice, although I had absolutely nothing to do with it, you were poisoning the well for some time, and the complaints were mounting to an inevitable conclusion.
That’s the real issue here. Whether or not I proclaim anything, you’ve long developed a reputation as a crank, and seem unable to correct your attitude in a sincere manner to change that perception.
You’re hyper intelligent, but toxic to interact with. It will continue to be your detriment. And you will continue to blame others for your incapacity to socialize effectively because if you had a sense of humility, you would have stopped behaving like a cad long ago.
I have clarified any ambiguity. If someone continues to insist there is ambiguity, then they are being dishonest.
Btw, I clipped the definitions for stability. I think I will have to do this all the time, since my critics are unable to ask for clarification in good faith (see the Wikipedia discussion) and instead jump to conclusions.
I completely understand that instability implies uncertainty. However, I, in the portion of my previous post that you did not quote, provided the www.dictionary.reference.com definition which showed that, with respect to level of uncertainty, the word “crisis” is equivocal.
I will re-post the definition:
a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, esp. for better or for worse, is determined; turning point.
a condition of instability or danger, as in social, economic, political, or international affairs, leading to a decisive change.
The first definition says that, in a “crisis”, “the trend of all future events . . . is determined” which implies complete certainty. However, the second definition says that a “crisis” is “a condition of instability” which implies incomplete certainty (and therefore some level of uncertainty).
Therefore, the word “crisis”, with respect to certainty, is equivocal and therefore ambiguous.
And, I would appreciate if, in the future, you do not imply that further disagreement with your position implies dishonesty. Such a claim is unproductive and insulting.
I have clarified any ambiguity about my use of the term crisis. That’s really all there is to it if you are going to critique what I have written. The minute you assume a definition I have disavowed, you’re no longer debating me or my argument (see Stratton, Giles)
Can you not handle criticism? If you believe that you successfully clarified any ambiguity with respect to your usage of the term “crisis”, then merely re-post it.
I would appreciate if you would treat my posts with respect. If you are going to assume gaps (real or perceived) without asking in good faith for clarification (which I consider unproductive, insulting AND wasteful), I will point out that intellectual laziness as dishonesty since you’re obviously too intelligent to be stupid.
I’ve tried to ignore you, but you insist upon being heard almost every time I post now. Since that is the case, then accept the terms of an engagement you are initiating. You’re welcome to disengage anytime, but for the love of all that is holy, don’t tell me I need to appease you while you relentlessly nip at my heels.
One last thing. You were wrong. If you don’t like being labeled dishonest, you can pull your big boy diapers up and just admit you made a mistake. We all make them. I make mistakes constantly. And I even own up to some of them. [;)] Just because you’re on the hunt, doesn’t mean you’re above standards of honesty.
What are you talking about? Do you want me to present all of my interpretations of your posts and then ask whether such an interpretation is or is not correct before I proceed? That is clearly unreasonable.
The entire discussion this morning has been about clarifying my remarks. What do you not understand? You declared an ambiguity, and I responded with the image from Google. Not to mention, that Nir was able to grasp the context I used crisis in, and I posted agreement with him.
What more do you need? You were the one who posted “completely different” and now admit there is ambiguity. Perhaps you should be the one offering a mea culpa, instead of trying to harass me for an unnecessary one, hmmm?
I was just giving you an example of how to handle ambiguity in good faith.
I don’t think it is unreasonable that when you disagree with someone, before posting a criticism, you verify that your interpretation is accurate.
Given how hard you have been pursuing me across the forum, posting nearly every time I do, I think the onus is on you to make sure your criticisms of me are relevant and accurate. If you’re going to play that role, then accept responsibility for it. Making erroneous challenges isn’t good form, and if you really want to knock me down a peg (or whatever purpose your obsession with me is about) then you want to really nail me on my ideas, not polkas of pedantry.
Do you not realize that that definition that you provided is only one of the possible definitions? I provided the other definition that proved that that term is, with respect to level of certainty, equivocal.
The category “crisis” neither precludes nor implies “uncertainty”. Therefore, they are “completely different”.
I’m going to start working now. Arguing definitions and post sequences and who was insulting to who, and who was ambiguous and what is equivocal won’t pay the bills. And it’s a lot less enjoyable than shaving with a rusty straight blade.
Liberty Student, foolishly thinks that work is play.
LS, you have a very strange tendency to make everything that goes on extremely personal. And this leads you to make odd claims about me being “toxic” to interact with (that are certainly not shared by everybody) when I make valid criticisms of incorrect positions you hold. As for my “angel wings”, I don’t hold any resentment against you, I just think you say some very silly things all too often.
In what way is “complete certainty” implied? Look at the grammar. What is determined? “…the trend… is determined.” This is hardly an implication of complete certainty. One could be completely certain that a “stage in a sequence of events” is responsible for the trend. But the phrase, “the trend of all future events,” in no way implies a certainty of the future. Trends are, by definition, general, not absolute:
trend
–noun
1.
the general course or prevailing tendency; drift: trends in the teaching of foreign languages; the trend of events.
2.
style; vogue: the new trend in women’s apparel.
3.
the general direction followed by a road, river, coastline, or the like.
We all say silly things. The intelligent and honest man can admit he is wrong, dust himself off, and carry on with an improved understanding of what he does and does not know. I’m after the truth in all of its forms. I don’t have an academic or public career to protect. I’m not invested in one market/system or another. So while I may have some ideological biases, I believe they are based on truths and if those supposed truths can be refuted or debunked, I am happy to adjust my biases. I recognize the greatest self-inflicted epistemological barriers are willful ignorance and confirmation bias.
For a brief moment in time, you are doing it right.
