Still nothing.
The redefinition of it nowadays is meant to keep it from being understood.
You could IF you just identify the 3 words you see on your screen (slippery slope fallacy) and copy them and paste into a search box on the internet. then read the definition, to understand what I am talking about. Instead you want me to do the work for you.
When you use terms to supposedly discredit something I say, then it is up to you to define it. I've already had a conversation recently with somebody who continued to believe I wrote something even though it was quoted repeatedly that I said something different. That was my latest lesson that taught me I need to get definitions straight from people before proceeding.
Show me that in the rules. It sounds made up.
Thank you for pointing out that expecting a simple answer to a simple question to certain people can indeed be a waste of time.
Hey, someone asked me a question, and I answered it. It's a simple concept that not everyone can understand, but I wanted to set an example of what it looks like.
When a term is unqualified, then the implication is that it is general, undivided, as a whole. If you were to say "dogs are mammals" I would understand you to mean "all dogs are mammals". If you were to say "dogs are yellow" I would not know what you were talking about since since the implied "all" doesn't fit.
Much better at being an impenetrable-object rather than an irresistible-force?
The same way I know no one is pushing Vulcan ideology or hobbit ideology. You can't push things that are made up.
