Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kaimetsu
So why haven't you done this?
|
Because one would trust a physicist's words, knowing that they have no real knowledge that could surpass the physicist's, since a physicist will have evidence of their superior knowledge on that subject. You however have not shown any evidence that your interpretation is founded by an expertry in langauge.
Quote:
|
Do you know what 'recursive' means? Do you not understand that a recursive definition of the type you gave is as useless as it is tautological? Would you consider the sentence "an apple is an apple" particularly helpful?
|
Alright, then i will redefine myself as saying Being biased towards x is Treating x differently than someone with which no bias has been formed.
Quote:
|
Well, that is a strange perception. We were talking about use of English at the time, after all.
|
Maybe not even argumentive. But a grammarical flaw has nothing to do with definitions.
Quote:
Not an error at all. The 'that' is optional. Apparently you agree:
"Saying ___ you have a bias towards something"
"I will point out any like errors ___ you've made"
"i do not think ___ we can get much more out of this argument"
|
I am not exactly sure how it's categorized, but the mistake you showed is hardly considered one in common grammar.
[quote
Huh? How is that the same? You referred to faults
possessed by arrogance, while I merely referred to the fault that
is arrogance.[/quote] I wasn't saying arrogance would have faults, i was saying it would cause them (or rather that it didn't). My interpretation of yours is the same type of flaw in finding a mistake, and unimportant anyway.
Quote:
|
But that's an inaccurate (and overly literal) interpretation. To be born from X is simply to occur as a result of X. It doesn't say anything about the actual act of childbirth.
|
See above.