Is a flimflam a flimflam?

[willmac]

So in absolute conclusion- a flimflam cannot be a flimflam even when the observer is unknown to the word because the definition of sense suggests something of a general consensus.This was roughly what my friend said.I hate losing.

[Czarcasm]

@willmac

Furthermore, rather ironically one might say it all depends on your understanding of nonsense.It depends on whether one considers nonsense as dependent on the observer- by which the answer would be associated with the understanding of the observer, whether it is based on a general consensus or furthermore perhaps merely it being documented would suggest that a flimflam is not a flimflam.

In the 2nd case- imagine a scenario where the whole world was destroyed and only one human survived.Therefore a flimflam would have to be a flimflam (assuming that they do not know the meaning of the word) because the general consensus of the word would be nonsensical.

On the other hand, in the third scenario would a flimflam still NOT be a flimflam because in the past someone has asserted its meaning?

Finally, if your definition of sense would suggest a general consensus then what is the general consensus to the meaning of sense.I have asked several people and they all seem to have varying views.The only problem is is that if the definition of sense is proved to be different through general consensus what would it be then? Surely this is a paradox? What would that mean for all of the other words if their right to belong in the dictionary was attributed under a paradox?

Please don’t hurt me.But correct me if I am wrong- or take the “right” logic further.

1. Don’t start a dialog with “Furthermore”
2. 2nd case? Where’s the first case?
3. “On the other hand, in the third scenario would a flimflam still NOT be a flimflam because in the past someone has asserted its meaning?” What 3rd scenario are you referring to?

[Czarcasm]

@willmac

So in absolute conclusion- a flimflam cannot be a flimflam even when the observer is unknown to the word because the definition of sense suggests something of a general consensus.This was roughly what my friend said.I hate losing.

Some cats are fuzzy, but architecture is difficult to learn while the blender is on.

[Tully_Mars]

@willmac

What kind of sick minded person would impersonate a 14 year old?

[YODA]New to the internet, you are.[/YODA]

[Great_Antibob]

@QuickSilver

14 my arse.

I buy it. I’ve only known adolescents to believe that particular type of self-important twaddle sounds intelligent or meaningful. It’s kind of cute, in a way.

@willmac

I hate losing.

Get used to it. It happens to all of us.

If somebody denies it, they’re delusional. Or they might actually be right all the time and, hence, insufferable. Neither alternative is desirable.

[willmac]

@Czarcasm

1. Don’t start a dialog with “Furthermore”
2. 2nd case? Where’s the first case?
3. “On the other hand, in the third scenario would a flimflam still NOT be a flimflam because in the past someone has asserted its meaning?” What 3rd scenario are you referring to?

I explained that in the first case it would be dependent on the observer, in the second case it would be based on general consensus of the population and in the third case- that the fact that flimflam has documented meaning would suggest that it will never be a flimflam in any scenario.

Perhaps now you can see the third case? Moving swiftly past my juvenile grammar?

[cochrane]

@willmac

And unlike you american types I do not drive to the postbox- I actually do often get excercise.

Lazy American stereotype. I’m done reading.

@Czarcasm

Some cats are fuzzy, but architecture is difficult to learn while the blender is on.

My cat’s breath smells like cat food.

[Kent_Clark]

@willmac

In the 2nd case- imagine a scenario where the whole world was destroyed and only one human survived.Therefore a flimflam would have to be a flimflam (assuming that they do not know the meaning of the word) because the general consensus of the word would be nonsensical.

See, here’s your mistake right here. If only one human survives, there’s no such thing as a “general consensus” because there isn’t anyone with which to have a consensus.

a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group

You’re asking what the definition of a word would be when there is literally no one in existence (and I’m guessing in your scenario there is also no dictionary with a definition of the word that survived) to agree on a definition.

Now you’ve gotten yourself into the linguistic equivalent of trying to divide a number by zero. It’s meaningless. You can keep asking for an answer, but there is no answer because it’s meaningless.

[willmac]

The whole damn point is that you cannot have a consensus in the second case so therefore a flimflam must be a flimflam (see logic above).

And what I was questioning for the third scenario is whether the fact that its meaning was documented suggest that a flimflam will never be a flimflam, even if the word is unknown and all original documentation is destroyed.And what about whether a dictionary survived but the observer had not found it, would a flimflam STILL be a flimflam?

I guess i am probably not making myself clear enough.

[willmac]

[quote=“cochrane, post:47, topic:690704”]

Lazy American stereotype. I’m done reading.

I guess I have been reading to much Bill Bryson.

[kaylasdad99]

OP, riddle me this:

Is it possible for a skillful con man to persuade another person to agree to do something that is not in his own best interests, primarily through the use of obfuscatory language that sounds almost coherent and rational, and succeeds by playing off the target’s unwillingness to admit that he has lost the thread of the interaction?

[QuickSilver]

@willmac

I guess i am probably not making myself clear enough.

No “probably” about it.