Hand gun vs Chemical Weapon :: World of Warcraft

He's not, so it's not.

I have clarified my claim far more than should be required. What is an unfair burden is you demanding that I prove what the definition of a word you are using doesn't mean. Nowhere in the definition of "accurate" will you find the words "does not mean weapons of mass destruction", thus I can't meet the criteria you've demanded. What I can do is provide another word with a definition which matches what you're saying far far better than the word you are using.

Which is precisely what I've done at least 3 times already.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#208 Dec 19 2012 at 6:13 PM Rating: Default

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

GbajiI wrote:

have clarified my claim far more than should be required.

Then please quote it, because all you have done is said "that doesn't fit". You have not provided a countering definition.

Gbaji wrote:

What is an unfair burden is you demanding that I prove what the definition of a word you are using doesn't mean.

How so? If I can provide several definitions that match my intent, the burden is on you to show how those definitions don't match my intent. You just can't say "you're doing it wrong" without some proof other than what you think. If it isn't defined somewhere outside of your own head, then it's simply your opinion, which is nice, but not absolute.

Gbaji wrote:

Nowhere in the definition of "accurate" will you find the words "does not mean weapons of mass destruction", thus I can't meet the criteria you've demanded.

That's an absurd counter. Of course the definition will not say that because that's not how definitions work. My "criterion" isn't to some how change the definition, but to provide a countering definition that would exclude WMD from accuracy. Even the definition of WMD supports it. So, the burden is on you to provide ANY definition of anything that contradicts that claim. Given that WMD can very well be accurate depending on how they are used is the reason why you can't meet my criterion.

Gbaji wrote:

What I can do is provide another word with a definition which matches what you're saying far far better than the word you are using.

Which is precisely what I've done at least 3 times already.

Correction, that's what you attempted. You say "effective" is a better word, but based off of weapons that are "off 200 feet from their target". When I asked you to provide me these weapons that are "off the target" and their status of details, you failed to do so. Primarily because you just made up stuff.

My argument isn't that EVERY WMD is accurate, but WMD can be accurate if used correctly. I asked you if you believe if WMD can be accurate, then you say "WMD" can't be accurate because its a payload. Then I provided definitions that contradicts that claim. Then the circle of elusiveness continues.

All you have done this entire time is say "Nu-uh". You have not provided any evidence to support your opinions.

Edited, Dec 20th 2012 2:14am by Almalieque

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#209 Dec 19 2012 at 10:29 PM Rating: Good

stupidmonkey

Sage

4,138 posts

Almalieque wrote:

I hope that you're not somehow implying that by asking him to clarify his claim is an unfair burden. That would be really ridiculous.

Nope. It was intended to amuse me, which it did, and humor is allowed to be ridiculous.

____________________________

Dandruffshampoo wrote:

Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.