That is not a dichotomy. Please stop using words you do not understand.
Well, I own several dictionaries, and evidently although my U.S. school system education admittedly does not exceed the 5th grade (whereas I think I saw you claimed to have a badge that declares you are a scientist), I know more about the word "dichotomy" than you do. That is, e
vidently, it seems to me. You are free to argue otherwise.
But since you are monopolizing the word (I say this because you operate as if you dominate or have total control over the definition of the word "dichotomy"), it is already not looking good for you as far as whether you understand how language even works on a fundamental level. That is, to say, "
X is not what
this word means!", is to deny that people may validly apply their own meaning to words, and in which, in the extreme case, not even dictionaries can be valid. Since, how could a valid definition
start, if it is not valid for people to apply one to a word? Regardless, I did use the word properly according to an established dictionary, so your declaration is silly on perhaps
all counts.
Oxford Dictionary:
Dichotomy: a division into two, esp. a sharply defined one.
&
Especially: much more than in other cases.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Dichotomy: a division or process of dividing into two esp. mutually exclusive or contradictory groups.
Oxford Dictionary provides a simple definition of dichotomy, meaning 'a division into two'. It follows up with, 'especially, a sharply defined division'. However it also defines 'especially' as "much more than in other cases'. So it fully allows for the 'other cases' to have the basic meaning to be 'division into two'.
Since this
obvious use of the language is
obviously sourced in an
obviously well established dictionary, my use of this following reasoning is
obviously completely fair; and your statement that apparently came from
ignorance, likely also from your established account of
arrogance, is
obviously wrong:
Since established dictionaries fundamentally define "dichotomy" as 'dividing into two", and you have
divided the potential of NASA faking the moon landing into
two possibilities, you have therefore provided a
dichotomy according to established dictionaries.
One might think the reason you
confidently said I don't understand the word 'dichotomy' is probably because you only understood the more common use of the word.
However, there is an argument that one of the possibilities you provided includes the
Soviets doing the deceiving, and the other possibility you provided includes the Soviets ridiculing the
U.S. for doing the deceiving. This may be argued to be in itself
contradictory (in that they are fundamentally proposed opposites), which would make it a dichotomy in a more common sense of the word as well. But, I find that argument in itself makes a potentially false dichotomy of interpreting your dichotomy.
Also on that note, there is a common phrase, "
false-dichotomy" that is used to label an informal logical fallacy of presenting two ideas as if they are the only two possible options in an equation, when there are indeed more possible options.
Cambridge Dictionary:
False Dichotomy: a choice between two things that is presented as if they are the only two possible things.
For this phrase,
Cambridge Dictionary defines dichotomy as a presented choice between two things, and the 'false' aspect of the phrase evidently comes from the action of presenting them as if they are the only two options.
According to
Cambridge Dictionary, you presented a
dichotomy (false one at that) for presenting two possibilities, but there are logically more possibilities that just the two you presented, which I have already provided in this genuine, carefully crafted article-sized response.
No, that is extremely relevant. A trial with no evidence and no motive goes no where.
No it was not relevant, because it was intended as a proposed logical possibility to demonstrate the falseness of your dichotomy. That ship has sailed and has already arrived back to the dock. It turns out, this so-called 'trial'
was the evidence itself.
But if you want it to make it relevant, then what exactly do you want it to be relevant to, and how do you justify making it relevant in the context of our conversation?
Again, you clearly have no idea what is a dichotomy.
This message of yours aged worse than milk twelve weeks after it's expiration date. See my justification for my fair and proper use of the word "dichotomy'.
--------------------
I said:
It is a logical possibility because it doesn't contradict any laws of logic. It is logically possible. You didn't leave room for it.
So this answers your question on how you sound ignorant with your dichotomy.
You replied:
You are throwing out random words that do not further your argument.
Which of those words do you claim are random? All of them? Or what? You probably just don't understand them.
For one, that part of the answer of mine was precisely relevant for answering your question and defining my use of the phrase "logical possiblity".
You can
claim it is random words, but that doesn't mean your claim of it being "random words" is true. In fact, you provided no basis for your claim. It appears
your claim itself is a collection of random words.
I also considered this from another angle. Perhaps not everything I write intends to further my arguments. For example, some words are intended to be questions to help me simply learn more.
But is everything
you write intended to further your argument? That is, is your only purpose here to argue? It seems you are subtly telling on
yourself.
You have one simple task:
Look at you, as if you are the taskmaster.
First, before we get into my supposed task, if you have the authority to distribute a task to me, then it is fair I have the authority to distribute a task to you:
Your task is to write me a particular essay on the word 'Dichotomy'. It must be at least 30 paragraphs. Explain the apparent origin of the word, and cite several established dictionary definitions. Provide and explain several possible fair uses of the word based on each of these definitions.
Actually, I have more tasks for you. To not overwhelm you, here is just one more: Watch the apparent video evidence I showed you, and write an essay on that. Post it in this forum once you have completed it. Make this one a minimum of 60 paragraphs. The narrative of the essay is to be from a position of
general skepticism and no biases from either position of the subject - that is, you are to not give an unfair advantage to either side in contemplating whether the moon landing happened.
What is the evidence for a global conspiracy that involves nearly at this point all governments and corporations to fool the entire population without any motive given by you for such a thing. You won't touch that. You will throw out red hearings.
I am not going to insult you.
What are red hearings? I suppose you meant to type "red herrings".
So here is Chihuahua back with the crystal ball making predictions.
What do you mean my task is: "What is the evidence...etc. etc."?
My task is
the evidence itself?! or what? what is your 'what'?
I suppose you meant and should have said, "
Provide the evidence...". But you didn't say that. You said "What is the evidence" and eventually followed up with predictions, but no question mark. There isn't even a question mark in the passage, so it is not even a proper question. So it is a very confusing passage in itself.
You act like I don't understand the word "dichotomy" so as to criticize me on my use of the English language, yet I have now backed up my use of the word with exceptional precision, and even cited established dictionaries. Meanwhile, your post evidently contains multiple inaccuracies with the English language.
We should be careful to check ourselves before criticizing others. I know that's hard, and we all have surely been found to be hypocrites at times.
- "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" [Matthew 7:3]
On the subject of providing evidence for "a global conspiracy that involves nearly at this point all governments and corporations to fool the entire population without any motive given by" ...me..."for such a thing", why would I provide evidence for
that?
This appears to be a strawman fallacy, as I have been speaking of a conspiracy with the potential motive of taking a large chunk of taxpayer's
money. I think your reading comprehension needs work.
Also, note that I have not plainly declared the earth is flat nor that the moon landing didn't happen. So rationally there is no burden of proof on me to provide evidence for those conspiracies, though I am and have been happy to share what I have found.
