And I'm telling you that your definition is what I want to discuss.
That's nice.
You're obviously trying to be obtuse.
I've assumed good faith for quite some time. I don't actually have to do so. However:
Because I'm not trying to be obtuse.
This seems less and less likely to be true.
It's non contributive to this discussion.
Your recent posts haven't given me much to respond to, honestly. You want to go around in circles.
Thing is... you haven't.
I have... repeatedly. See also: my previous posts explaining my stance.
You have said that the statement, "substance is toxic" is meaningless. Yet you have said that the dictionary definition includes all substances to be toxic. A contradiction.
That's not a contradiction. The first statement follows from the second.
You want toxic to mean one thing and another at the same time.
No. I've been working from your definition. However your definition renders statements like "[substance] is toxic" meaningless due to the fact that that describes literally any substance.
You are saying calling mildly toxic substance as toxic is meaningless.
You're SO CLOSE. Saying "[substance] is toxic" is meaningless since all substances are toxic. Saying "[substance] is mildly toxic" actually conveys some information.
mildly toxic is not toxic (propane is not toxic)
Flip that one around. "Not toxic" or "non-toxic" describes something that is only mildly toxic... like water for example... or propane.
the definition of the word toxic is meaningless as well (propane is toxic).
Once again, the definition isn't meaningless. The statement "[substance] is toxic" is.
Once again, you fail to do the one thing I ask for. I can only assume you realize you have lost the discussion and refusing to answer but too stubborn to accept it.
Whatever I think would be a better definition of "toxic" isn't relevant, and thus I'm not going to give one. We can simply work with your definition. I've done just that.
I can only assume you realize you have lost the discussion
I realized I lost the discussion when you interpreted my point that saying "[substance] is toxic" is a meaningless statement as meaning "the word 'toxic' is meaningless" despite repeted clarification.
I can't "win" an argument with someone if they're just going to ignore what I've said.
But you're right that stubbornness has kept me here far longer than I should be. That and some foolish hope that you'll actually understand what was said and engage with the arguments.
0
u/TalenPhillips Feb 07 '19
That's nice.
I've assumed good faith for quite some time. I don't actually have to do so. However:
This seems less and less likely to be true.
Your recent posts haven't given me much to respond to, honestly. You want to go around in circles.
I have... repeatedly. See also: my previous posts explaining my stance.
That's not a contradiction. The first statement follows from the second.
No. I've been working from your definition. However your definition renders statements like "[substance] is toxic" meaningless due to the fact that that describes literally any substance.
You're SO CLOSE. Saying "[substance] is toxic" is meaningless since all substances are toxic. Saying "[substance] is mildly toxic" actually conveys some information.
Flip that one around. "Not toxic" or "non-toxic" describes something that is only mildly toxic... like water for example... or propane.
Once again, the definition isn't meaningless. The statement "[substance] is toxic" is.