Exactly. The person is, often off the cuff, tossing the exclusion out due to the inconvenience of the example. They often do this in patterns.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 6:13 am
That is the entire point of the NTS. That it is a disingenous exclusion. Yes, there can be contention about this in individual cases.
Yes, someone could misuse the NTS when someone has no pattern like this and defines the term, and always did, the way they are now.
However there is a real pattern that it is focusing on.
Advocate has been acting from the beginning as if the NTS meant that if you exclude someone from a category, then you are wrong.
And Traffic Logic was assuming that in real disagreements where there is a clear and standing disagreement over inclusion, the dictionary is always the only solution needed.
Which essentially means he is like Age. All problems go away if we just agree on meanings.
The Catholic meets the animist. They argue over whether animals have souls.
Traffic logic jumps in: look in the dictionary.
Cambridge: the spiritual part of a person that some people believe continues to exist in some form after their body has died, or the part of a person that is not physical and experiences deep feelings and emotions:
So, the Catholic wins.
Websters: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life. 2. a. : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe.
Hm. ARe animals rational beings? Some animists do think animals are rational.
Oxford: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
"they believe death is just one step in a soul's journey through the universe"
Now the animist his happy and the Catholic rejects the authority of the dictionary.
All the while this dive into dictionaries is ongoing,
a materialist scientist is listening this argument and is pulling her hair out.