Sauron, you’re not suggestion - oh, how I cringe at the thought! - that The Ryan might have - gasp! - misquoted and mis-stated Waverly’s position about using “only” the fourth definition, are you? Because that would mean The Ryan is making up lies about other posters, and we all know he would never do that.
Gee, I’d hate to see him banned for that… :rolleyes:
Esprix
Actually, The Ryan appears to be engaging in (dare I say it?) argumentum ad absurdum, by intentionally misstating and oversimplifying Waverly’s point.
To avoid any confusion, I’m using the definition of argumentum ad absurdum as found here: “an argument based on the absurdity (of an opponent’s argument).”
Waverly, to my knowledge, never insisted that the fourth definition of the word was the ‘only’ definition. By so stating, and then indicating confusion over which definition (first or fourth) should be used, The Ryan is being intentionally obtuse (in my opinion) and is using that ploy to engage in argumentum ad absurdum.
Since he previously attempted to impugn Waverly’s intelligence by claiming Waverly didn’t know the definition of argumentum ad absurdum, I must assume The Ryan is familiar with that definition and the overall debating tactic. To have such knowledge and still use the tactic is dishonest, in my opinion. I am not a seasoned debater, but I believe this tactic is frowned upon, in much the same way an ad hominem attack is discouraged.
Sauron, I do maintain (though to be clear it is just my subjective opinion) that Ryan intentionally misunderstands, derails debates, and nitpicks for pleasure. I’ve pointed it out, and though it seems you would agree, it is unfortunately not going to change his behavior one iota. The irony of the Ryan himself attempting to nullify valid definitions is not lost on me, nor is his irritation at being accused of argumentum ad absurdum even as he utilizes the fallacy yet again.
And one can only wonder if The Ryan will learn anything from this exchange.
[sub]Prolly not.[/sub]
Esprix
It was clearly implied. Look, we all know the phrase “intend to hurt” implies malice. For Waverly to say that it doesn’t is just another example of the extremes he’ll go to not admit that I’m right.
Anybody who ever had any doubts about your bullshit factor should be assuaged by those four words - “It was clearly implied.”
Since when, you mountainous pile of horseshit, did you EVER accept ANYTHING written on this message board that was “clearly implied?” You will happily take up FOUR PAGES OF A THREAD to debate ONE SINGLE MEANING of ONE SINGLE WORD, and you have the FUCKING BALLS to justify your illogical, ill-conceived and unwelcome hijacks with, “It was clearly implied?”
You are a troll of the highest order. I think it’s time to start checking IP addresses, 'cause I’m sensing some serious “OCD-related” posting styles here…
Esprix
Ryan posts ‘it was clearly implied’??
You do not get to tell any of us that anything you post is ‘clearly implied’ when you spend hours, days, bandwidth enough to fill the motherfuckingocean in excrutiating detail that when you posted the word ‘homosexual’ you meant exactly the dictionary.com definition and nothing more and certainly nothing less.
Esprix:
You’re right. He’s wrong. The horse has died, been dragged to the rendering plant, turned into dog food, eaten by Fido, crapped out, stepped on by the neighbor’s kids. Scraped off a shoe with a stick and thrown into the woods where it fertilized a tree which produced a great big stick, which you sawed down, turned into a club, and whacked The Ryan in the rhetorical skull with, spilling his metaphorical brains and ceasing the life functions of his credibility.
You are now running the risk of becoming a two-trick pony.
Here’s a little thought experiment. Consider the phrase:
“The loss of Larry “Crudeshoes” Johanson is going to hurt the Idaho Meatpuppets bid for the Uberbowl.”
Who is guilty of malice in this woeful tale? Is this an incorrect usage of ‘hurt’ despite not being definition number one?
Remember when I asked you if you could make yourself look any more foolish, Ryan? Way to rise to the challenge.
I said that intending to hurt implies malice. But it’s so much easier to argue against what I didn’t say, isn’t it?
Pot, kettle, black. SCORE!!
Boy, this debate stuff is fun. Do you guys come here often?
The Ryan is clearly circumcised.
Ah, so actually hurting, in the usage given, does not imply malice; but should you intend to hurt (keeping that same usage) then malice is a given. So if our hero, Larry “Cruelshoes” Johanson intends to hurt his chances for a quick recovery by smoking kelp, then he must be doing so with malice. Gotcha ya.
He’s not so much circumcised, as he is a foreskin of a human being, punha. And here he is trying to hijack Eprix’s thread with more nitpicking. The purpose of this thread is to discuss what an annoying prick the Ryan is, not let him showcase yet more of his semantic blathering.
Ryan, if you have nothing to share with us on the subject of what a mud sucking, slack-jawed cretin you are, then I humbly suggest you are off topic.
It’s strange how you go from one mispresentation of my position to another. I said that it implies malice. You know “imply” as in “usually means”. Not “in every conceivable instance, even the contrived hypotheticals that Waverly invents. means”.’
What is the next word that you will misinterpret?
“If”?
“phrase”?
“malice”?
maybe we should start a pool.
If Esprix really didn’t mean what his words clearly implied, he has had ample time to set the record straight. Instead he has simply allowed you to continue your semantic quibbles.
No, I don’t know. That word means to infer indirectly, it has nothing to do with ‘usually means.’
Esprix is welcome to restate his question if he so wishes, but based on your continued avoidance, one can hardly blame him for giving up. I took the liberty of rephrasing to satisfy my own curiosity, but you didn’t answer me either.
And there is ‘clearly implied’ again. Since when does Ryan, patron saint of linguistic exactitude, allow anyone to ‘imply’ anything?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
cough
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You are a fucking funny man!!!
The semantic line is so funny, I think it made me incontinent!!!
clears tears from eyes
Oh… you were serious. Telling others they are having semantic quibbles is ludicrous coming from you.
There is a thread going on about what radioactive thing that people would like to be bitten by. Were you bitten by a radioactive hypocrite?
I feel I should come to Ryan’s defense, here.
Several posters have come quite close to accusing him of pretending to misunderstand every word of the English language, for nefarious reasons.
I think it is only fair to consider that sincerity is a possible explanation.
Tris
Imply does not mean the same as infer.
I take it you did not follow my link? I’m sure you are thinking of ‘Imply’ as suggesting indirectly and ‘Infer’ as drawing conclusions from such suggestions, but you will note that ‘Inference’ is clearly used in the definition of ‘Imply’ and when you look up ‘Infer’ you will find that it not only carries the meaning of drawing conclusions, but also suggesting. I admit I could have chosen less ambiguous words, and hope this explains more satisfactorily.
The Ryan, a few yes/no questions for you:
Do you agree that words can have multiple meanings?
Do you agree that you’ve pointed this out in the past?
Do you agree that Waverly pointed out that the word “hurt” had multiple meanings?
Do you agree that he never claimed the fourth definition of the word “hurt” must be used to the exclusion of all others?
Do you agree that pretending you were confused by this is an example (or at least a precursor) of employing argumentum ad absurdum?
If you answer “no” to any of these questions, please explain.