Just one question.

Do you know what syllogism is?

You can refer to all the dictionary definitions of words you want and then claim they mean something else.

Just because you say so, though, doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter if people concur with you either.

As for calling me a troll, please. Stop projecting.

no, syllogism has nothing to do with definitions, ignoring basic dictionary definitions, and replacing them with what you want them to mean does not make your position superior, in fact by dodging basic definitions and dodging requests makes your position INFERIOR. Yes, you played the game of troll quite well. But asking us to stop calling you what you have clearly demonstrated yourself to be, that aint gonna happen, you sir have trolled long enough.

Yes, syllogism has everything to do with definitions.

Without it, people can claim anything means anything. You just refer to a definition, and claim something else fits even though it really doesn't.

To paraphrase Boromir, we "...have a Cave Troll!"

The same goes for simply claiming someone's wrong.

2+2=4

YOU'RE WRONG! DON'T YOU GET BASIC LOGIC?!

Uh huh.

For what it's worth, I don't think Argo is a troll. I do think he is trying to make a point. I just think he is very bad at presenting and defending it. The constant tangents make me want to stop trying to pull his point out.

As for syllogism, in order for them to be valid, the two premises must be categorically true for the conclusion to be categorically true. The problem we are having is that we cannot categorically agree on the premises. That is why I was trying to agree on the definitions. Once they are categorically agreed on, we could come to conclusions.

But, I no longer wish to pursue this.

I agree with what you're saying about categorical truths.

The problem with language, though, is there's no such thing. For example, words often have slightly different definitions even among dictionaries, and if you really think about it, there's no necessary correspondence between a semantic idea and its aesthetic appearance. For example, there's no reason we call a square a "square" instead of a "circle". It's just a convention.

The problem is conventions vary among communities where people communicate differently, especially when it comes to principles which have no consistent empirical benchmark...

...so what you have to do is discuss things entirely differently. First, both sides define words analytically. Then, both sides keep defining and redefining words in context of the vocabulary at hand until they conclude a universal paradigm that doesn't leave anything out.

As I said, I no longer wish to pursue this.