[QUOTE=Grossbottom]
Then you lack a more perfect understanding of the English language. Irreconcilable, as used by me, was a predicate adjective, the meaning of which would be ‘not reconcilable.’
Main Entry: rec·on·cile
Pronunciation: 're-k&n-"sI(-&)l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ciled; -cil·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French or Latin; Anglo-French reconciler, from Latin reconciliare, from re- + conciliare to conciliate
transitive verb
1 a : to restore to friendship or harmony <reconciled the factions> b : SETTLE, RESOLVE <reconcile differences>
2 : to make consistent or congruous <reconcile an ideal with reality>
Ergo, I have stated that war cannot be made harmonious or congruous with what is moral. But this does not mean or imply that all war is immoral; merely that it is irreconcilable with a state that is moral. The exclusion of a thing does not necessitate the inclusion of its opposite. This is logical, and to some, obvious.
Your ignorance is now fought. You may admit to the mistake or by all means, continue.
You continue to misstate my position. Cite to where I said all wars are immoral.
I was insulting the argument, not the poster, which I took to be permitted. Apologies.
[/QUOTE]
You argue that your use of the phrase “irreconcilable with” was in keeping with the dictionary definition given above, and you argue that on that use, to say that something is “irreconcilable with morality” does not imply that it is immoral. You are incorrect on both accounts.
You are also incorrect to think that looking something up in a dictionary settles its meaning. For one thing, a word can often be part of a phrase, the entire phrase having a definition of its own, which definition is not dependent on the meanings of the phrase’s constituent words. For another thing, dictionaries can err in their record of the usage of words.
So, for example, googling “irreconcilable with” turns up a list of results–actual use of the term by competent English speakers, in various contexts–every single one of which illustrates the fact that, in the English language, “irreconcilable with” means “not compatible with, contradictory towards,” or words to such an effect. This may be in accordance with the dictionary definition, or it may not be, but my point is, the dictionary definition is not relevant when we can get a good look at how actual English speakers actually regularly use the word.
Based on that usage, as illustrated through the google search, we see that to say something is irreconcilable with morality is to say it is not compatible with morality. For something to be incompatible with morality is for it to be immoral. Were it neither moral nor immoral (as you suggest it could be while remaining “irreconcilable with morality”) it would be compatible hence reconcilable with morality. A rock, in and of itself, is neither moral nor immoral. Hence, the existence of a rock is compatible–reconcilable–with morality.
Now to your other arguments, mentioned in my first paragraph above.
The dictionary definition given says that to reconcile is to make consistent or congruous. Hence to be irreconcilable is to be incapable of being made consistent or congruous. But a morally neutral item, as I’ve just illustrated, is capable of being made consistent or congruous with morality. The only thing that can’t be made consistent or congruous with morality is that which is morally negative, i.e., immoral. So we see both that your claim that your understanding of “irreconcilable” is in keeping with the dictionary definition is incorrect, (yours allows “irreconcliable with morality” to apply to the morally neutral, while the dictionary definition does not), and by the same token, we also see that the dictionary definition you gave does indeed imply that that which is irreconcilable with morality would be immoral.
So your arguments have been based on a bad premise that dictionary lookups are relevant to this discussion, and furthermore, even granting that premise, your arguments’ conclusions did not validly follow.
-FrL-
