Brett Kavanaugh, great justice or greatest justice?

[Proteus_MST]

Take developing fruit for example. You can call it fruitlet, baby fruit, or fruit. All three terms are used and all are understood by English speakers. Only a retards would say "No. It's only a fruitlet!"

A developing fruit is not as different from a developed fruit, as a "developing baby" (for example in the 1st Trimester) is from a "developed baby" ... FACT

[Kidlicious]

Take developing fruit for example. You can call it fruitlet, baby fruit, or fruit. All three terms are used and all are understood by English speakers. Only a retards would say "No. It's only a fruitlet!"

[Kidlicious]

"You were the one that claims that a "developing baby" and a "developed baby" are not 2 distinct groups but practically are the same (as you claim that the operative term, is "baby" and not "developing " vs. "developed")"

Yeah, and that's true. "Developing baby" is part of the group "baby."

[Kidlicious]

Scientific definition /= definition. And no they are not important because we aren't talking about science. ****!

Words can mean two different things to two different people. FACT!

[Proteus_MST]

Again, he didn't say that a fetus is a born baby. You are stuck in stupid.

You were the one that claims that a "developing baby" and a "developed baby" are not 2 distinct groups but practically are the same (as you claim that the operative term, is "baby" and not "developing " vs. "developed")

The correct meaning of a would depends on what the person meant when they used it. FACT!

If 2 persons (or 2 groups in society) attribute different meanings to a certain word, then it is bound to resu7lt in misunderstandings (which is why in science definitions matter a lot).
The Theory vs. Hypothesis problem I mentioned is a good example for this.

Common people don't even think about the possibility that "Theory" may have a different meaning from the one they use. (And actually, the words "theory" and "hypothesis" as they are used in science predate the use of "theory" in "normal society" )

[Kidlicious]

Even if million people use it with this meaning, in exact terms a (born) baby still is different from a fetus (and therefore you won't be able to attribute to a fetus the same capabilities/attributes, that you can attribute to a baby)

Again, he didn't say that a fetus is a born baby. You are stuck in stupid.

It is the same with "theory" ... in common language people (incorectly) use theory different from scientists.
When common people say "theory" they often mayn something that, for a scientist, is a "hypothesis", which also is why common people often think that the "Theory of Evolution" is just a theory (in their terms), whereas "Theory" in sicentific terms has a stronger meaning (and this misuse of the terms by laymen then also leads to religious fundamentalists thinking they have a strong case against evolution, as it is "just a theory" )

The correct meaning of a would depends on what the person meant when they used it. FACT!

[rah]

I don't think anyone here is supporting 3rd trimester abortions except under extreme circumstances. It's pretty much common sense that the fetus is developed at that point.
It should be equally evident that on day one the the fetus isn't yet but to some it isn't.

[Proteus_MST]

The only one defining their own definitions is you. Everyone else knows that a baby is either unborn or born. They say it all the time. Therefore that is the definition.

Even if million people use it with this meaning, in exact terms a (born) baby still is different from a fetus (and therefore you won't be able to attribute to a fetus the same capabilities/attributes, that you can attribute to a baby)

It is the same with "theory" ... in common language people (incorectly) use theory different from scientists.
When common people say "theory" they often mayn something that, for a scientist, is a "hypothesis", which also is why common people often think that the "Theory of Evolution" is just a theory (in their terms), whereas "Theory" in sicentific terms has a stronger meaning (and this misuse of the terms by laymen then also leads to religious fundamentalists thinking they have a strong case against evolution, as it is "just a theory" )

[Kidlicious]

Well, if everyone defines his own terms, then noone will understand anything anymore.
I am, for example, sure that your (and other Trumpists) meaning for the term "logic" is different from the meaning it has for the rest of the world

The only one defining their own definitions is you. Everyone else knows that a baby is either unborn or born. They say it all the time. Therefore that is the definition.

[Proteus_MST]

We aren't talking about science. We are talking about logic, which you suck at worse than any person that I ever met. Only an insane person would still be claiming that words don't mean what the speakers of those words say they do.

Well, if everyone defines his own terms, then noone will understand anything anymore.
I am, for example, sure that your (and other Trumpists) meaning for the term "logic" is different from the meaning it has for the rest of the world

How about this ... I define "standing" as "flying", "at" as "into", "chair" as "plane" and "table" as "WTC-Towers"

I fly on my plane into the WTC-Towers
totally harmless sentence, as I guess, every day millions of people also fly on their planes into their WTC-Towers as well

[I AM I AM MOBIUS]

April's Showers: Sink The May Flowers.

[Kidlicious]

Actual definitions of words are very important, especially in science.
Even Trump would be able to tell you this ... if he actually had a "natural instinct for science" as he claims
(but of course he hasn't ... Trumps relationship to "science" is similar to the relationship of a congenital blind person to "seeing")

We aren't talking about science. We are talking about logic, which you suck at worse than any person that I ever met. Only an insane person would still be claiming that words don't mean what the speakers of those words say they do.

[Proteus_MST]

A dictionary ATTEMPTS to give a definition of a word as people use it. Actual word meanings often diverge from dictionary definitions. This is the case. As I have shown people describe unborn babies as babies all the time. Therefore unborn baby is baby.

Actual definitions of words are very important, especially in science.
Even Trump would be able to tell you this ... if he actually had a "natural instinct for science" as he claims
(but of course he hasn't ... Trumps relationship to "science" is similar to the relationship of a congenital blind person to "seeing")

[Kidlicious]

A dictionary ATTEMPTS to give a definition of a word as people use it. Actual word meanings often diverge from dictionary definitions. This is the case. As I have shown people describe unborn babies as babies all the time. Therefore unborn baby is baby.

[Kidlicious]

All dictionaries I looked up for "Baby" give it as a term for an already born child, not one in the womb:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...y/english/baby

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/baby

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baby

And from that you still think that a developing baby is not a baby?

He didn't say that it was a born baby. He claimed that it was a baby (no qualifier). He claimed that it is in the "developing and developed" group.