Great, so maybe you found a FEW gray or slightly varying definitions that don't relate to economics being a base of knowledge, study or science. Unfortunately, for every one definition that suggests it is not a study/science/base of knowledge, there are 10+ more that do. Thanks for proving the same. The fact is, the vast majority of the time the word is used, it is used so as to pertaining to a study, or science, and as so shown - knowledge. With that in mind, we could end the debate between you and I right there, as it's obvious that if one were to assume how I were using the word "economics" - the very fact that 95%+ of the definitions explain it to be exactly what I suggested (pertaining to study/science), and the 5% are to grey to truly determine one way or another - is reason enough to learn towards the way I've been saying I used it.
So great, we have effectively substantiated what I've been saying all along. Good job team Swiftfuck. We now know that by stating "I do not adhere to american economics" It's almost entirely likely I'm saying "I do not adhere to american studies of... "I do not adhere to the american sciences of...." or "I do not adhere to the american knowledge/interpretation of..." .... Do I need to remind you that literally 95% of the definitions of economics, and science that we both posted prove the same?
Discussion is over.
Nonetheless, let's continue. Because for some reason, as if that simple sentence wasn't clear enough, you also managed not to figure out what I was saying through the context. I'm really glad you brought up context!
If I asked you: Are you current on your home mortgage? Or how rough was the current when you drifted the river last week?
You would see the same word with two distinctively different meanings, yet the context would allow you to decipher between the two.
To that end, you've also finally been made aware of a valuable conundrum within the English language: many of our words have multiple meanings, but for the most part, we aren’t confused by them. That’s because the other important element of language is context. Maybe using the word "current" gives for an overwhelming simple example, but it's to make a point nonetheless.
Let's evaluate the context in mine and Zack's discussion as it pertains to "not adhering to american economics" and see if we can't conclude that the context alone was set to easily clear up any unwarranted confusion you and him have had.
My first response: "teach me? i don't adhere to american economics, they are retarded, and you'll come out dumber if you somehow do graduate. oh and milton friedman is a homo."
(The bolded words will hereinafter be referred to as "the words in question)
1. the words in question do immediately follow "teach me?" which is obviously in reference to his talks of going to school to study economic theory. Thus it's reasonable to conclude that I was referencing his schooling (see studies, sciences, knowledge) as to what I do not adhere to.
2. then immediately following the words in question i replied with an insult in regards to his goal to graduate - further showing that I was still on the subject of economics as it pertains to studies.
3. Miltion friedman was/is a renowned american economist and shooting him down falls in line with the rest of the context.
My second Reply: "A capitalist doesn't need to believe in the theory and framework of popular american economics in order to practice capitalism."
I don't even need to explain that one to you, do I? Come on. Zack responded to both of these replies unable to comprehend what I was talking about even with sufficient context provided. Then I made another reply, and you acted as if my prior replies didn't suffice? silly newb.
The debate is clearly over. It's overwhelming substantiated by both you and I that the words in question were sufficient enough for one to conclude as to what I was talking about, and moreover it is also substantiated that the context provides the same.
You are owned, it doesn't matter if you dissect the post or go with an "lmfao"/ "meltdown" type reply. I have effectively proven without a doubt, that I am right and you are wrong. I'm more interested to watch you squirm, as you always do, and see if you can some how manage to get me to reply with your weak post that is most likely to follow.
