PDA

View Full Version : If you want to know what a word means...



Wickabee
03-20-2014, 06:43 PM
Which is the better source, The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/) or YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/)?

I'm continually told by Habs that random people on YouTube know more than the people who make the dictionary, and that YouTube is a better source for word definitions than the dictionary. I just want to see if the person telling me this is correct. Thoughts everyone?

And please, if you vote, let us know which for, so we know where you get your facts. Thank you.

centrehice
03-20-2014, 07:37 PM
Oxford English Dictionary.

gsj68
03-20-2014, 07:55 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76myPAK4S_I

deansayso
03-20-2014, 08:03 PM
Dictionary until I saw the video above

centrehice
03-20-2014, 08:06 PM
Definition of "Breast Augmentation"

Wickabee
03-20-2014, 08:07 PM
Oxford English Dictionary.

Not an option. Merriam-Webster or YouTube. Which do you accept as the official definition.


Dictionary until I saw the video above

Even I'm starting to question myself after that. Jeez.

Wickabee
03-20-2014, 08:07 PM
Definition of "Breast Augmentation"

Yes, and any woman over 110lbs eats too many pies.

Did you consider we don't flipping care?

centrehice
03-20-2014, 08:18 PM
Go take some happy pills you miserable child.

Wickabee
03-20-2014, 08:21 PM
Go take some happy pills you miserable child.

I'm just fine. I don't take offense to other peoples' views on fake breasts. A miserable child would, and you did. I simply stated we don't care, and your idea of beauty is Karen Carpenter or current Cleopatra. If anyone is miserable here, it certainly isn't me.

Though, finding out you side with people who use YouTube as a source of fact might do that to someone...

Oh, and answer the question presented. Any other answer will be considered a vote for "C: Meat" and thrown out.

habsheaven
03-20-2014, 09:58 PM
Classic false dichotomy. The OP presents two options as if there are no others. He wonders why no one is taking him seriously. lol

Wickabee
03-20-2014, 11:08 PM
Classic false dichotomy. The OP presents two options as if there are no others. He wonders why no one is taking him seriously. lol

You want me to add urban dictionary? Sorry it's already up, but I'll accept it as a write in.

As for being taken seriously, you presented a YouTube video of a random person and a quote from urban dictionary as sources of fact. It's out there now, and people can decide for themselves who has the actual story and who searches to reaffirm their own beliefs. The answer to that has been made clear.

Merriam-Webster is a dictionary. YouTube is social media. Fox has more credibility.

habsheaven
03-20-2014, 11:31 PM
What else is out there now? I believe I posted several other sources. Why do you continue to ignore those? Do you think that anyone reading will miss them too, like you did? As for the video; that random person just happens to be a person I follow on twitter who happened to be explaining the very topic you can't seem to fathom. Still haven't seen you address the substance of it yet. But then again, you never do if it disagrees with your viewpoint.

Tell us again what the difference between an Agnostic and an Atheist is?

Wickabee
03-21-2014, 12:13 AM
What else is out there now? I believe I posted several other sources. Why do you continue to ignore those? Do you think that anyone reading will miss them too, like you did? As for the video; that random person just happens to be a person I follow on twitter who happened to be explaining the very topic you can't seem to fathom. Still haven't seen you address the substance of it yet. But then again, you never do if it disagrees with your viewpoint.

Tell us again what the difference between an Agnostic and an Atheist is?

Those are the ones that started with "The belief that" which I have referenced over and over.

The fact you are continuing this despite posting an overwhelming amount of evidence against yourself ( all those other definitions which you ignored my comments on), and continue to argue for social media as a source of fact shows you care not for facts nor discussion. Only your petty politics.

I sincerely feel sorry for you, and everyone like you. You do not respect knowledge or fact, only what fits your world view.

Case in point, you had to go searching social media (I haven't even got into the fact your urban dictionary said it's about arrogance...literally "one who is not arrogant" was the first definition, that's as stupid as stupid gets, yet you posted it), when all I had to do was go find a dictionary.

You like to accuse me of roundabout arguments, yet you want me to argue that teenagers logic.

I simply want you to crack a dictionary.

When you can keep up with the conversation your in, let me know. I've mentioned those definitions many times, that's why I keep saying it's 5.5-0.5. You obviously aren't reading, so maybe go do that for once, keep up with the conversation, and learn what qualifies as source material, and what a jabbering teenager is.

I'm done trying to teach you something this basic. You believe a 17 year old girl over the dictionary itself. Maybe if the dictionary was an attractive young liberal female you'd believe everything it says?

habsheaven
03-21-2014, 08:58 AM
Those are the ones that started with "The belief that" which I have referenced over and over.

The fact you are continuing this despite posting an overwhelming amount of evidence against yourself ( all those other definitions which you ignored my comments on), and continue to argue for social media as a source of fact shows you care not for facts nor discussion. Only your petty politics.

I sincerely feel sorry for you, and everyone like you. You do not respect knowledge or fact, only what fits your world view.

Case in point, you had to go searching social media (I haven't even got into the fact your urban dictionary said it's about arrogance...literally "one who is not arrogant" was the first definition, that's as stupid as stupid gets, yet you posted it), when all I had to do was go find a dictionary.

You like to accuse me of roundabout arguments, yet you want me to argue that teenagers logic.

I simply want you to crack a dictionary.

When you can keep up with the conversation your in, let me know. I've mentioned those definitions many times, that's why I keep saying it's 5.5-0.5. You obviously aren't reading, so maybe go do that for once, keep up with the conversation, and learn what qualifies as source material, and what a jabbering teenager is.

I'm done trying to teach you something this basic. You believe a 17 year old girl over the dictionary itself. Maybe if the dictionary was an attractive young liberal female you'd believe everything it says?

Here I am going to post one more definition, explaining what agnostic means. Does it look familiar. Then try and comprehend what it is saying.



Full Definition of AGNOSTIC1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unknowable); broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonexistence) of God or a god

2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

Now compare that to the "attractive young liberal female". Notice how it speaks about "unknowable". Notice how it mentions "NOT COMMITTED TO A BELIEF" in existence OR nonexistence.

Yet you say it is a BELIEF in something.

Yes, it is Merriam's

Wickabee
03-21-2014, 11:53 AM
Yeah. It replaces belief with view. You wanna do that? Fine.
It's also a view regarding knowledge and an opinion regarding knowledge and any other synonym you can find. It's still belief ABOUT knowledge. Opinion OF. View REGARDING.

It describes the belief, view, or opinion of knowledge of God.

"A man wearing shoes" is about the man, not the shoes.

A belief about knowledge describes the belief, not the knowledge.

I rest this case.

duane1969
03-21-2014, 12:28 PM
This "debate" aside, I find the concept of YouTube as a source to be laughable, right up there with Wikipedia. Using the logic that YouTube is a valid source for definitions, I could produce a YouTube video with the following definition:

intellectual - a conservative-minded, Caucasian person of middle or upper socio-economic class, living in the United States, with no less than a Masters degree from an accredited college or university.

Would that be true? Not hardly. YouTube as a source is laughable.

habsheaven
03-21-2014, 12:50 PM
This "debate" aside, I find the concept of YouTube as a source to be laughable, right up there with Wikipedia. Using the logic that YouTube is a valid source for definitions, I could produce a YouTube video with the following definition:

intellectual - a conservative-minded, Caucasian person of middle or upper socio-economic class, living in the United States, with no less than a Masters degree from an accredited college or university.

Would that be true? Not hardly. YouTube as a source is laughable.

Answer me this. Who said Youtube is a valid source for anything? Like anything, the validity of the source is in the details of what the source is saying. This is no different than the attacks the left make on FOX, and the right make on HUFFPOST. If one can't attack the substance of what is being said, they attack the source.

Weak, at best.

Wickabee
03-21-2014, 12:53 PM
Answer me this. Who said Youtube is a valid source for anything? Like anything, the validity of the source is in the details of what the source is saying. This is no different than the attacks the left make on FOX, and the right make on HUFFPOST. If one can't attack the substance of what is being said, they attack the source.

Weak, at best.
The validity of the source is who it is.

And I'm not attacking anything. I'm saying that Merriam-Webster is by far a better source than some girl in a video you yourself may or may not have shot on YouTube.

How is that an attack?

habsheaven
03-21-2014, 12:55 PM
Yeah. It replaces belief with view. You wanna do that? Fine.
It's also a view regarding knowledge and an opinion regarding knowledge and any other synonym you can find. It's still belief ABOUT knowledge. Opinion OF. View REGARDING.

It describes the belief, view, or opinion of knowledge of God.

"A man wearing shoes" is about the man, not the shoes.

A belief about knowledge describes the belief, not the knowledge.

I rest this case.

ATHEIST - a person with a disbelief in God(s)

THEIST - a person with a belief in God(s)

AGNOSTIC - a person with no knowledge of God(s)

GNOSTIC - a person with knowledge of God(s)

There you can rest your mind and your case.

Wickabee
03-21-2014, 01:00 PM
Atheists, theists, agnostics, and gnostics are all people. You ignored that part.

Agnosticism: "The belief that" DONE.

and I didn't even have to swear once.

duane1969
03-21-2014, 02:39 PM
Answer me this. Who said Youtube is a valid source for anything? Like anything, the validity of the source is in the details of what the source is saying. This is no different than the attacks the left make on FOX, and the right make on HUFFPOST. If one can't attack the substance of what is being said, they attack the source.

Weak, at best.

Ignorance supported by ignorance does not make it fact. FoxNews and HuffPost produce gibberish and claim validity based on their own interpretation of the facts. I am not attacking the source (YouTube), I am saying quite plainly that finding a video on YouTube that supports your opinion of what you want something to mean doesn't make it valid. It just makes you believing what you want to believe and convincing yourself that your preferred source is valid since it supports your own opinion.

habsheaven
03-21-2014, 02:46 PM
Ignorance supported by ignorance does not make it fact. FoxNews and HuffPost produce gibberish and claim validity based on their own interpretation of the facts. I am not attacking the source (YouTube), I am saying quite plainly that finding a video on YouTube that supports your opinion of what you want something to mean doesn't make it valid. It just makes you believing what you want to believe and convincing yourself that your preferred source is valid since it supports your own opinion.

Again. I will ask. Who said Youtube as a source was VALID? I expressly said that I felt this video explained the topic well so I posted it. No differently than you posting a link to a website that you think supports your case. Can we now reply to every link with, "the internet is not a valid source of information"?

Wickabee
03-21-2014, 03:15 PM
Again. I will ask. Who said Youtube as a source was VALID?
You.

I expressly said that I felt this video explained the topic well so I posted it.
And the only official anything about that video is the site it was officially posted on. YouTube.


No differently than you posting a link to a website that you think supports your case.
True, if the site is a network of random people with zero credentials.


Can we now reply to every link with, "the internet is not a valid source of information"?
I think I see your problem. I could reword it to say "A random girl on YouTube," but it's the exact same question.

Oh, and before you ask, I'm taking a break, and eating a twinkie. I know you're super interested in why I post when I do.

habsheaven
03-21-2014, 04:01 PM
I can see why you get so confused. I stand behind THAT video and it's message. Just because it is posted to Youtube does not exclude it from being a VALID point. As I already conveyed to Duane; any medium is as valid as the information being posted on it, just as is any other internet site. An honest person would debate the substance rather than focus on the medium itself. Try that for a change. Or is that too much of a challenge for you?

duane1969
03-21-2014, 04:06 PM
Again. I will ask. Who said Youtube as a source was VALID? I expressly said that I felt this video explained the topic well so I posted it. No differently than you posting a link to a website that you think supports your case. Can we now reply to every link with, "the internet is not a valid source of information"?

Fair enough, but the subject of this thread is YouTube as a valid source for a definition of a word. That was what I was speaking to.

habsheaven
03-21-2014, 04:29 PM
Fair enough, but the subject of this thread is YouTube as a valid source for a definition of a word. That was what I was speaking to.

Your right. So that makes it a pretty useless thread.

Wickabee
03-21-2014, 04:37 PM
Your right. So that makes it a pretty useless thread.

I said we can change it to random girls on YouTube. If this is such a distinction for you, why would you ignore that?

Oh right, it's what ignorant people do.

Wickabee
03-21-2014, 04:50 PM
I can see why you get so confused. I stand behind THAT video and it's message. Just because it is posted to Youtube does not exclude it from being a VALID point. As I already conveyed to Duane; any medium is as valid as the information being posted on it, just as is any other internet site. An honest person would debate the substance rather than focus on the medium itself. Try that for a change. Or is that too much of a challenge for you?

My bad. This takes care of your concerns: http://www.sportscardforum.com/threads/2077288-Which-is-a-more-reasonable-source-for-a-word-definition

habsheaven
03-21-2014, 06:51 PM
Are you frothing at the mouth yet?

Wickabee
03-21-2014, 07:12 PM
Are you frothing at the mouth yet?

Is this seriously all you have left? Yeah, we're done. Buh-bye.