Appealing to the crowd is not a logical fallacy when it comes to describing the pronunciation, spelling and definition of words used by those crowds. The meaning of words comes from (is described by) how those words are commonly used. This is where the idea of a "descriptivist" lens comes from. Someone who describes how words are used in a population, as opposed to a prescriptivist, someone who either tells people the correct way to use words or (as in your case) tells others that the way they are using words is incorrect ("dishonest" "loaded language" etc). Maybe you didn't bother to follow the hyperlink and that's ok if you didn't understand at first, but moving on... your attitude towards the definition of the words "molest" "rape" and "victim" was a prescriptivist attitude. It seems as though you are still choosing to circle back to your initial "misunderstanding" as a way to keep the conversation focused on you and what you understood and when you understood it rather than on being open minded to what others have patiently explained to you, which is not too different to your #NeverSaidThat troll where you try to bait people into going round and round and round correcting the record of what you said and when you said it. As for your "misunderstanding" at this point it's obvious that you are choosing to not get it out of the sheer trollish joy you get from playing dumb and wasting the time of he people who have been patiently (for three comments now) explaining that the talked refers to a quote from an earlier discussion which defined what a prescriptivist approach means (telling people how words should be used) verses a descriptivists approach (describing how words are commonly used). And again you use the #NeverSaidThat troll to deny that the "blah blah blah" refers to your text, but no one anywhere claimed that it did. It takes many words (aka blah blah blah) to tease apart the tangled web of "misunderstandings" and baseless "disagreements" that you attack other people with when they try to explain a simple concept to you. You twist their words back and forth, and although it only takes you a few words to claim not to have understood who was talking to who where, it takes a paragraph to explain how it was perfectly obvious to anyone who was trying to understand. This is why talking to you is like stepping into a tar pit. Every effort someone makes to extract themselves from the quagmire just wastes more of their time and effort until they eventually realize that the conversation is pointless. They might as well be saying blah blah blah for all the good it will get them as far as making someone who has no interest in seeing where they are coming from get their point. And this is why, believe it or not, BC's unofficial Official Troll Wrangler is tasked with responding to your trolling. One sacrificial victim to the tar pit, just to show any newbies or unaware people the pointlessness of even trying to reason with you. Meanwhile the other habituates of this place are free to carry on their conversations without interacting with you, since if BC's trolls have taught us one lesson over the years it's that to feed them is to adopt them and carry them around like a monkey on their backs every time they visit BC. Just remember people: if you are reading this conversation and you roll your eyes and ask yourself why someone would waste their time trying to get monkeyLostInHead to see their point, the point of even engaging with monkey this time was to illustrate how his trolling works and to make the good people of BC aware of the dangers of engaging with trolls on this site. It will suck up your time, piss you off and if you aren't very careful you might find yourself revealing personal details about yourself which become part of your permanent record here on BC. It's much better and safer to decide what you want to talk about and stick to what you came to talk about and if monkey tries to sidetrack your conversation with some troll bait, just recognize him for what he is and don't take the bait. ![]() |