Morals are bad

[Fiendishjester]

This was sorta deleted from the server crash, but I want to continue it, and, from looking at the Nietzsche Vs. Christianity topic, I think I have more to add. Seeing as how Nietzsche (I hate spelling his name, so from now on FN) totally slipped my mind when talking about how morals are bad,and that is exactly where I first got the idea, let's reintroduce it. I'm gonna start off with the first thread from FN Vs. Christianity, since I can't seem to find any underlines and such, I'm just going to start off with the first paragraph. Now although I realize that this is going pecifically at christian morals, I think it can be applied to all morals, and furthermore, I think the only reason FN actually went after chritian morals in the first place was because christianity was the only "real" morals of the time of the european world.


"Have I been understood?— What defines me, what sets me apart from the whole rest of humanity is that I uncovered Christian morality. That is why I needed a word that had the meaning of a provocation for everybody. That they did not open their eyes earlier at this point, I regard as the greatest uncleanliness that humanity has on its conscience, as self-deception become instinctive, as a fundamental will not to see any event, any causality, any reality, as counterfeiting in psychologicis to the point of criminality. Blindness to Christianity is the crime par excellence—the crime against life ... The millennia, the nations, the first and the last, the philosophers and old women—excepting five, six moments in history, and me as the seventh—at this point all of them are worthy of each other. The Christian has so far been the "moral being," a matchless curiosity—and as the "moral being" he was more absurd, mendacious, vain, frivolous, and more disadvantageous for himself than even the greatest despiser of humanity could imagine in his dreams. Christian morality—the most malignant form of the will to lie, the real Circe of humanity: that which corrupted it. It is not error as error that horrifies me at this sight, not the lack, for thousands of years, of "good will," discipline, decency, courage in matters of the spirit, revealed by its victory:—it is the lack of nature, it is the utterly gruesome fact that antinature itself received the highest honors as morality and was fixed over humanity as law and categorical imperative! ... To blunder to such an extent, not as individuals, not as a people, but as humanity! ... That one taught men to despise the very first instincts of life; that one mendaciously invented a "soul," a "spirit" to ruin the body; that one taught men to experience the presupposition of life, sexuality, as something unclean; that one looks for the evil principle in what is most profoundly necessary for growth, in severe self-love this very word constitutes slander! that, conversely, one regards the typical signs of decline and contradiction of the instincts, the "selfless," the loss of a center of gravity, "depersonalization" and "neighbor love" (addiction to the neighbor!) as the higher value, what am I saying! the absolute value ... What! Is humanity itself décadent? was it always?— What is certain is that it has been taught only décadence values as supreme values. The morality that would un-self man is the morality of decline par excellence—the fact, "I'm perishing," transposed into the imperative, "all of you ought to perish"—and not only into the imperative! ... This only morality that has been taught so far, the morality of un-selfing, reveals a will to the end, fundamentally, it negates life."

I think to add on a little bit, the fact that morals give so much power to the norm, and take away so much from the abnormal makes it so that they are a very very dangerous thing. I think that Christianity only has to be an example of how the abnormal finds themselves in a dominant static powerflow that favors the other side, in this case, God,angels, the soul, and being "sinless". But for other morals this is true too, and when it becomes identity that is the moral, people start dying usually, for example in Nazi germany, because it was immoral, or morrally unheygienic to be a jew, you had to be killed. The same thing in America with blacks, and well, all other minorities. I think that morals are bad because they relentlessly entrench hegemony of the norm, and thus all of the abnormal find themselves in a very powerless situation.

 

[Magisterium]

I was wondering when this was gonna resurface!

Tell me this, you begin by asserting that morals are bad. This statement contradicts and defeats itself in that it presumes that you are capable of objectively discerning good and bad. (which is what morals are for in the first place). By saying that morals are bad, you are condemming the process by which one discerns good and bad. Do you understand?

It is in fact necessary for you to begin by stating that you "feel" that the current standards of right and wrong are not correct. This at least leaves you the ability to establish them again as you see fit.

 

[Magisterium]

Now I'll address that quote from FN.

Seeing that quote from FN, makes me realize that he had been exposed to a sort of austere or cold and harsh ascetic christianity which was prevalent in his corner of the world at his time. Unfortunately, that led him to the opposite end of the spectrum. The desire to throw off all types of restrictions and guidelines. However at some point, you cross the line from freedom into license. True freedom and it's necessary boundaries eluded FN (and many of his contemporaries) and led to licentious tendencies and teachings. License is defined (in this context) as freedom that allows or is used with irresponsibility or disregard for standards of personal conduct. True freedom is always universal and necessarily limits itself to those actions which do not (directly or indirecty) infringe upon the freedom of others.

 

[Philosoft]

Tell me this, you begin by asserting that morals are bad. This statement contradicts and defeats itself in that it presumes that you are capable of objectively discerning good and bad. (which is what morals are for in the first place). By saying that morals are bad, you are condemming the process by which one discerns good and bad.

I dont' think so. "Morals are bad" is not a self-referencing statement. If he had said something like, "All judging statements are bad," then you might have a point. But it's okay to condemn morality as long as one has another frame of reference.

It is in fact necessary for you to begin by stating that you "feel" that the current standards of right and wrong are not correct. This at least leaves you the ability to establish them again as you see fit.

Actually, a deductive, or even an inductive argument does not require one to "feel" one way or another.

 

[Fiendishjester]

I was wondering when you would catch on

Well, it goes like this, every moral is bad because every moral is a norm, like I said before, the norm is bad, but, furthermore, every moral is created by society (in my humble opinion of course). Now, while morals are absolute rules that do not take into consideration the fact that there are infinite situations where the morals could be applied, and a few situations where the moral choice would not be the right one, my statement was made about the finite morals that we see today and have in the past. The other difference is that situations differ immensly, while morals do not at all, they all follow the, same exact structure. Not to mention, while morals are maid by society, the statement was made by me, so, yeh, morals are bad, but, my statement was not a moral.

But, if you really want me too, I feel morals are bad, and I don't hate them, because hate is a strong word, I do not like them. lol, I'm just playin with ya.

 

[Fiendishjester]

ahhhh, sorry, I'm replacing a repeated post with these words of apology instead, well, sorry.

 

[Fiendishjester]

also, (sticking with foucault of course) it wouldn't matter if I felt a certain way, or actually said "morals are bad". My feeling a certain way would equal my knowledge of something, and since truth is just a battle of knowledge, to see which one wins out, and I'm sure that my knowledge will, otherwise I wouldn't consider it truth, saying "I feel morals are bad" would be the same as saying "Morals are bad" just a little more cumbersome.

 

[LaserCool]

From what I've read of FN, I'd have to say you basically mis-understand him. Not a diffcult thing to do, given his propensity for run-on sentences, subordinate clausing and assumption that you'd read all his previous stuff.

Essentially, FN rejects the selflessness of Christian dogma and obsession with "right action" that invovles self-sacrifice. Hence, he casts himself as an anti-christ in the sense that he's anti-Christian. His books "Twilight of the Idols" and "The Anti-Christ" are a bit clearer on this point.

At any rate, the point isn't that defined ethics are bad. One must decide proper conduct once one enters into relationship with other humans. Living alone on a deserted island, ethics are not necissary, but living in a society, they are vital.

FN approaches the problems like so: "morality" as being a codified set of behaviors, taken as such or imposed by society as such, are evil. Taking the burden of another's morality is an act that limits human freedom, knowledge and interaction with the world. It takes self out of the equation.

FN is asking us to ask ourseves "What is proper ethics to me?" He asks us to engage ourselves in the reasoned questioning of all things, including that which we accept without question since childhood.

Only in that case can we decide an ethical point of view that supports our own lives, maximizes freedom and allows us to live in peace with others.

Morality, if self-generated, is quite "good". The problem is that most don't believe they are qualified to decide for themselves what's right and wrong. FN points out that this is the "slave morality" (a man who is the slave to another;s thinking and expectations), and that the proper role for thinking men was the "master morality" in the sense not of masters over slaves, but masters over themselves and thier lives.

The Christian, he reasons, are not only mental slaves seeking to enslave others to thier brand of submission, they are actively seeking death at the end of this ethical road. The ultimate in self-sacrifice is self-destruction, and FN implies that that kind of vouyeristic glee of watching someone immolate his own Will to Power on the altar of "the expectation of Others" is what Christains take delight in the conversion of the heathen.

At least, that's how I read it.

 

[Magisterium]

I dont' think so. "Morals are bad" is not a self-referencing statement. If he had said something like, "All judging statements are bad," then you might have a point. But it's okay to condemn morality as long as one has another frame of reference.

Actually, a deductive, or even an inductive argument does not require one to "feel" one way or another.

What is clear is that you do not have a solid grasp on language. The term "moral are bad" is not self referenceing. Self-referencing would have been to say "according to my perspective, morals are bad"
To simply say "morals are bad" implies that you know what bad is, and have determined that morals fit the description.

Further more, it doesn't appear that you understand just what morals are. The word "morals" literally means standards of right and wrong. Effectively, what you are saing is "standards of right and wrong are wrong" which is self defeating and illogical.

However, it is clear from your elaborations on this thread that it's not morals you dislike, but the current set of morals. To do away with standards of right and wrong all together is logical and social anarchy. It seems clear from the discussion here though, that no one here has actually studied applied morality. If they had, they might have stumbled across a little thing called culpability. Culpability takes into account the many intentions and circumstances which affect the responsibility for actions.

An example of culpability can be demonstrated as follows (I'll use justifiable homicide) Let's say a criminal breaks and enters a dwelling with the intent of rape. The intended victim shoots the intruder dead.
In this case, the action of taking of a life is not somehow right. It is still wrong. However, the person acting is not responsible (or culpable) for the action. In this case, the intruder created the situation and is actually responsible for his own demise. In this way, the integrity of objective morality remains intact, and circumstance and intent can be properly applied.

As you can hopefully see, morality is far more complex than simply "this is right, and that is wrong", it is a science of it's own. Until you have a deeper understanding of it, you cannot make such a broad sweeping statement such as the one that started this thread.

 

[Fiendishjester]

What is clear is that you do not have a solid grasp on language. The term "moral are bad" is not self referenceing. Self-referencing would have been to say "according to my perspective, morals are bad"
To simply say "morals are bad" implies that you know what bad is, and have determined that morals fit the description.

Further more, it doesn't appear that you understand just what morals are. The word "morals" literally means standards of right and wrong. Effectively, what you are saing is "standards of right and wrong are wrong" which is self defeating and illogical.

However, it is clear from your elaborations on this thread that it's not morals you dislike, but the current set of morals. To do away with standards of right and wrong all together is logical and social anarchy. It seems clear from the discussion here though, that no one here has actually studied applied morality. If they had, they might have stumbled across a little thing called culpability. Culpability takes into account the many intentions and circumstances which affect the responsibility for actions.

An example of culpability can be demonstrated as follows (I'll use justifiable homicide) Let's say a criminal breaks and enters a dwelling with the intent of rape. The intended victim shoots the intruder dead.
In this case, the action of taking of a life is not somehow right. It is still wrong. However, the person acting is not responsible (or culpable) for the action. In this case, the intruder created the situation and is actually responsible for his own demise. In this way, the integrity of objective morality remains intact, and circumstance and intent can be properly applied.

As you can hopefully see, morality is far more complex than simply "this is right, and that is wrong", it is a science of it's own. Until you have a deeper understanding of it, you cannot make such a broad sweeping statement such as the one that started this thread.

In truth *laughs at ironic statement* no one has a grasp on language, you and I can try to define morals all we like, but we'll never really be able to, it is after all, a pretty baseless system. In the sense that you need words to define other words, you'll never be able to actually define anything. But we're not arguing about definitions, we're arguing about contradictions. You claim that I am basically setting a standard of right and wrong when I am saying that setting a standard of right and wrong is bad in the first place. This is not true *laughs again* I am not setting a standard because all that I am saying is that morals, specifically are wrong/bad, now, while the reasons for morals being wrong/bad might implicate standards, no such reasons were set forth, thus no standards were set forth, and thus, no contradiction occured.

Now for your second statement. You say that I do not understand morals, because we need standards of right and wrong. I am going to argue that you are the one who does not understand morals, because although we do need standards of right and wrong, universal standards of right and wrong are never good *hears argument that the statement is a contradiction coming from a mile away*. Your example included an ethical solution, not a moral one, although both are eternally intertwined, they have critical differences. Ethics as I have said previously, look at the uniqueness of the situation, while morals are universal. By the moral killing is bad, the would-be victim of the rape intending criminal was still wrong, it doesn't matter what the situation is, killing is always wrong, due to the moral. I do think that we need standards of right and wrong, just ethical standards. So yeh, morals are bad.

P.S. Maybe that'll clear up what I think for Lasercool as well, because I know you said a lt about how ethics were good but I don't think you saw the topic before the server crash.

 

[Magisterium]

In truth *laughs at ironic statement* no one has a grasp on language, you and I can try to define morals all we like, but we'll never really be able to, it is after all, a pretty baseless system. In the sense that you need words to define other words, you'll never be able to actually define anything. But we're not arguing about definitions, we're arguing about contradictions. You claim that I am basically setting a standard of right and wrong when I am saying that setting a standard of right and wrong is bad in the first place. This is not true *laughs again* I am not setting a standard because all that I am saying is that morals, specifically are wrong/bad, now, while the reasons for morals being wrong/bad might implicate standards, no such reasons were set forth, thus no standards were set forth, and thus, no contradiction occured.

Now for your second statement. You say that I do not understand morals, because we need standards of right and wrong. I am going to argue that you are the one who does not understand morals, because although we do need standards of right and wrong, universal standards of right and wrong are never good *hears argument that the statement is a contradiction coming from a mile away*. Your example included an ethical solution, not a moral one, although both are eternally intertwined, they have critical differences. Ethics as I have said previously, look at the uniqueness of the situation, while morals are universal. By the moral killing is bad, the would-be victim of the rape intending criminal was still wrong, it doesn't matter what the situation is, killing is always wrong, due to the moral. I do think that we need standards of right and wrong, just ethical standards. So yeh, morals are bad.

P.S. Maybe that'll clear up what I think for Lasercool as well, because I know you said a lt about how ethics were good but I don't think you saw the topic before the server crash.

First of all, the fact that we need words to define other words does not mean that words are ultimately undefined. The problem is that you've decided in your mind that you can use any word to mean anything you'd like it to mean. even in this last post, you are not clear on the actual dictionary meaning of ethics! you claim that my example is an ethical one and not a moral one. I can only assume that you do not own a dictionary. Ethics are a subset of morals based upon obligation and duty.. Actually, let me just give you the actual definitions of the words so we can communicate clearly...

Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty
Pronunciation: m&-'ra-l&-tE, mo-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 14th century
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct 3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE

Main Entry: eth·ic
Pronunciation: 'e-thik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek EthikE, from Ethikos
Date: 14th century
1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles or values b : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> c plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> d : a guiding philosophy

As I asserted before, I assure you, the words you are using indeed do have definitions. You are only doing yourself a disservice by misusing them. Additionally, your thought process is also skewed as a result because you think and reason through the use of these words as well...

The problem here is that with your language, you are attacking the principal of morals. However, in your minds, you are attacking what we accept as morality...

 

[Philosoft]

What is clear is that you do not have a solid grasp on language. The term "moral are bad" is not self referenceing.

I know - that's what I said.

Self-referencing would have been to say "according to my perspective, morals are bad"

No, I'm not talking about a statement that references the "self", I'm talking about a statement that references itself. Only a self-referencing statement can be internally contradictory.

To simply say "morals are bad" implies that you know what bad is, and have determined that morals fit the description.

Okay.

Further more, it doesn't appear that you understand just what morals are. The word "morals" literally means standards of right and wrong. Effectively, what you are saing is "standards of right and wrong are wrong" which is self defeating and illogical.

Actually, I use a more philosophical definition of "moral" - things people ought or ought not do in all cases. I think that will clear up the confusion I have inadvertently caused.

 

[Fiendishjester]

First of all, the fact that we need words to define other words does not mean that words are ultimately undefined. The problem is that you've decided in your mind that you can use any word to mean anything you'd like it to mean. even in this last post, you are not clear on the actual dictionary meaning of ethics! you claim that my example is an ethical one and not a moral one. I can only assume that you do not own a dictionary. Ethics are a subset of morals based upon obligation and duty.. Actually, let me just give you the actual definitions of the words so we can communicate clearly...

Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty
Pronunciation: m&-'ra-l&-tE, mo-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 14th century
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct 3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE

Main Entry: eth·ic
Pronunciation: 'e-thik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek EthikE, from Ethikos
Date: 14th century
1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles or values b : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> c plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> d : a guiding philosophy

As I asserted before, I assure you, the words you are using indeed do have definitions. You are only doing yourself a disservice by misusing them. Additionally, your thought process is also skewed as a result because you think and reason through the use of these words as well...

The problem here is that with your language, you are attacking the principal of morals. However, in your minds, you are attacking what we accept as morality...

Okay, you think I'm a bumbling idiot, I can accept that, well, let me redeem myself. First off, your definitions are horrible, not only does your definition of what a moral is give us no clue what it is, but it uses the word moral over and over again to define itself. If we don't know what a moral is, then we can't know what the heck an ethic is, because your definition uses morals as the main definition of ethics. But I disagree with that definition of ethics anyways. This would be the definition of ethics I would use, and i believe in:

1.
a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).
2. ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
3. ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

where it says specific moral choices I most agree, so maybe that'll clear some stuff up. But otherwise, You haven't given me any evidence to say why language isn't a baseless system, you just said, essentially, no, you're wrong. That sorta doesn't cut it. I'll bet you that you can't define "the" without using "the" in the definition, I also bet you that you cannot truly define any of the words that I am typing or that you have typed. And just as a side note, I don't think that I can use any definition for any word that I please, and even if I did, it wouldn't matter because that is what everyone does, everyone who speaks or is involved with language.

 

[ObjectiveReality]

where it says specific moral choices I most agree, so maybe that'll clear some stuff up. But otherwise, You haven't given me any evidence to say why language isn't a baseless system, you just said, essentially, no, you're wrong. That sorta doesn't cut it. I'll bet you that you can't define "the" without using "the" in the definition, I also bet you that you cannot truly define any of the words that I am typing or that you have typed. And just as a side note, I don't think that I can use any definition for any word that I please, and even if I did, it wouldn't matter because that is what everyone does, everyone who speaks or is involved with language.

What exactly are you trying to prove, that rational thought is not possible? Or that the only rational thought is that rational thought is not possible? If so, why do you even bother posting here? Maybe I am missing something as I often dont understand your points or if you even have one to begin with.

A_B_: I am fairly sure your idea of morality is as close to mine as anyone else I have seen post here but I still don't understand why you harp so much on culpability. I think circumstance can lessen culpability but it seems you are arguing that free will can be taken away by the actions of others.

I made a longer post about this on the forums a few days ago before they went down but you used the example of self-defense again. Self-defense as an application of the principle of double effect is straight out of the catechism.
Object: Self-defense(firing the gun)
Intention: Protecting life
Good effect: Life is saved
Evil effect: Life is ended
The bad wasnt intended and the good doesnt outweigh the evil. The act is morally acceptable.

If you argue that the object is in fact killing the person then you argue that the good or evil of an action can only be determined by the consequences of that action. This would mean that you do not think the principle is applicable is any circumstance. That would be a valid argument but I somehow doubt you would be willing to go that far.

 

[Fiendishjester]

What exactly are you trying to prove, that rational thought is not possible? Or that the only rational thought is that rational thought is not possible? If so, why do you even bother posting here? Maybe I am missing something as I often dont understand your points or if you even have one to begin with.

No, it really doesn't have anything to do with rational thought, I was just adding on to a side note from before when he was talkng about meaning/definition of morality. I mean, you're right, it really didn't have too much of a point, in the sense if it did it should have been a whole different topic labeled "does reality exist". It was just that since he decided to answer it, and the answer wasn't so good, i decided to prolong the discussion, my apologies for the confusion if any.

 

[Magisterium]

Okay, you think I'm a bumbling idiot, I can accept that, well, let me redeem myself. First off, your definitions are horrible, not only does your definition of what a moral is give us no clue what it is, but it uses the word moral over and over again to define itself. If we don't know what a moral is, then we can't know what the heck an ethic is, because your definition uses morals as the main definition of ethics. But I disagree with that definition of ethics anyways. This would be the definition of ethics I would use , and i believe in:

1.
a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).
2. ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
3. ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

where it says specific moral choices I most agree, so maybe that'll clear some stuff up. But otherwise, You haven't given me any evidence to say why language isn't a baseless system, you just said, essentially, no, you're wrong. That sorta doesn't cut it. I'll bet you that you can't define "the" without using "the" in the definition, I also bet you that you cannot truly define any of the words that I am typing or that you have typed. And just as a side note, I don't think that I can use any definition for any word that I please, and even if I did, it wouldn't matter because that is what everyone does, everyone who speaks or is involved with language.

OK, I guess you proved my point. You said my definitions are "horrible" but they come from a recognized authority on the english language, Merriam Webster (www.m-w.com). However, it's clear that in your own mind you've elevated yourself to an authority of language and have proceeded to use your own definitions. Little do you realize, when you do this, you only skew your own thinking. Precisely because the words you're building your thoughts with are not what you think they are. (Confused yet?) Basically, you must get back to the beginning and learn to use words properly (in speech and in thought) in order that you do not continue making self defeating statements like the one which started this thread.

PS. I assure you that "everyone" is not making words mean what they want them to mean.. There are those of us who actually use a dictionary.

 

[Fiendishjester]

where do you think I got that definition out of, a hat of random definitions? The only reason I actually used a definition was because I didn't want to get into the whole language is a baseless system thing, and pretend that it was. I know I'm going to get "heck" for this this statement, because then you can just as easily attack the source of my definition (dictionary.com) but, usually, a definition is not supposed to use the word it is defining to define itself, that's what I think merits a not so good definition. Does this make me an authority on the english language, of course not, it just makes me a critic of defintions.

 

[Philosoft]

OK, I guess you proved my point. You said my definitions are "horrible" but they come from a recognized authority on the english language, Merriam Webster (www.m-w.com).

Merriam-Webster is not an "authority" on anything. It describes common usages, not objective meanings.

However, it's clear that in your own mind you've elevated yourself to an authority of language and have proceeded to use your own definitions. Little do you realize, when you do this, you only skew your own thinking. Precisely because the words you're building your thoughts with are not what you think they are. (Confused yet?)

Thoroughly. We can use whatever definitions we want, as long as we can adequately convey what we mean to other people.

Basically, you must get back to the beginning and learn to use words properly (in speech and in thought) in order that you do not continue making self defeating statements like the one which started this thread.

Proper use is not what M-W says, what you say, what anyone says. If I use a word in such a way that I can make you understand what I mean, then I think that is proper use.

PS. I assure you that "everyone" is not making words mean what they want them to mean.. There are those of us who actually use a dictionary.

These would be the dictionaries that write themselves?

 

[Fiendishjester]

lol, good one

 

[Philosoft]

lol, good one

Thanks. The appeal-to-Webster fallacy is a pet peeve.