Re: Common ancestor between man and ape

On Jun 11, 12:10 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:59:32 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:



On Jun 10, 2:38 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:33:56 -0700, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Jun 9, 5:38 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:41:44 -0700, UC wrote:
On Jun 9, 12:43 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:59:06 +0000, UC wrote:
On Jun 8, 2:58 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:45:25 +0000, UC wrote:
On Jun 8, 12:58 pm, Will in New Haven
<bill.re...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Men ARE apes. The equivalent to saying "dogs are wolves" would
be to say that men are chimpanzees, which they aren't. There is
a larger grouping that includes men and the OTHER apes. It has a
scientific name and you will accept it under that name but you
won't accept it under ape.

That's correct, because the MEANING of the word 'ape' prohibits
it, and you cannot change the meaning of the word 'ape'
arbitrarily to override it.

First, the meaning of a word never, EVER, prohibits another meaning
of the same word.

In an argument, using a word in two different senses is called
equivocation.

Equivocation is when the same person uses the word in two different
senses in the same argument. That is irrelevant here.

In the case of 'ape', the basic meaning refers to animals, not human
beings. It means essentially 'large primates other than men'. If you
use it to mean 'large primates including men', those senses are not
just different, they are contradictory. I'm not saying that you
can't use words that have multiple meanings;

No, you are saying words cannot have multiple meanings at all.

I have made no such absurd claim. On the contraty, I have published two
papers on the topic.

And yet you make exactly such an absurd claim. Observe carefully:

If you use it to mean
"large primates excluding humans," those senses are not just
different, they are contradictory. And both definitions are correct.
At the same time. Deal with it.

No, They are not both correct.

Those are your words: "No, They [the two definitions] are not both
correct."

but you can't use a word that explicity means 'except men' and say
that it includes men. That won't fly.

That's correct.

Like 'men'? You can't use a word that explicity means 'except women'
and say that it includes all humans. That won't fly. Oh, wait; it
flies all the time. In fact, you just flew it.

teh word 'men' implies "men and women". Don't be stupid.

The word "men" also means male humans, excluding women. You (meaning UC
only, since it is his very own rule) can't use a word that explicitly
means "except women" and say that it includes all humans. You said so
yourself.

That is a well-known exception. The word 'man' also means 'mankind'.

It does, you are learning. Keep it up.

It is easy to tell the meanings apart.

Sometimes.

There is no way, however, that
'ape' can be used to mean both "large primates excluding humans" and
"large primates including humans" without being contradictory.

Well, that is how the word ape is used. As humans are apes, then the
word ape must include humans.

But humans are not 'apes' if the word 'ape' excludes humans.

Good job it includes humans then.

No, it is a contradiction.



That's a
logical impossibility. It's like saying a Chevy is a Ford.

You are ignoring reality (as you imply a couple sentences back). The
word ape also refers to the concept of "large primates including man."
That is a fact. Deal with it.

No, it does not. Deal with it.

In the real world, it is a fact. Perhaps you should come and visit
sometime.

It is no 'fact' that men are apes.

Yes it is - one you cannot escape from.

No, sorry it is no fact.

Yes it is - one you cannot escape from.

No, it is no such 'fact'.



The words mean what they mean. And
the word 'ape' means 'not man'.

No it does not.

Yes, it does.

Lying, stupid, ignorant troll.

Babbon-fucking imbecile.

.