For "illicit analogy", though, it really DOES mean the same thing as "false analogy", even if "illicit" doesn't generally mean "false" and vice versa. "Illicit" means "false" and "faulty" in the context of reasoning. www.powerthesaurus.org/illicit_reas...
eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/79...
eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/79...
November 30, 2025 at 12:25 AM
For "illicit analogy", though, it really DOES mean the same thing as "false analogy", even if "illicit" doesn't generally mean "false" and vice versa. "Illicit" means "false" and "faulty" in the context of reasoning. www.powerthesaurus.org/illicit_reas...
eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/79...
eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/79...
I can't find a dictionary definition for "Illicit analogy". In place of one, I've provided examples of how people use it. Here's more: files.core.ac.uk/download/pdf...
www.relationalpsych.group/podcast/what...
I'm not gonna tell you why I thought you were gonna make one. That's spoilers.
www.relationalpsych.group/podcast/what...
I'm not gonna tell you why I thought you were gonna make one. That's spoilers.
November 29, 2025 at 11:48 PM
I can't find a dictionary definition for "Illicit analogy". In place of one, I've provided examples of how people use it. Here's more: files.core.ac.uk/download/pdf...
www.relationalpsych.group/podcast/what...
I'm not gonna tell you why I thought you were gonna make one. That's spoilers.
www.relationalpsych.group/podcast/what...
I'm not gonna tell you why I thought you were gonna make one. That's spoilers.
An illicit analogy is simply a false analogy, like "a cow is to grass what a shotgun is to a tree". Here's some examples of where the phrase is used: pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/ws/portalfil...
repository.essex.ac.uk/25730/1/84-A...
You're such an egomaniac that you don't see how others use language.
repository.essex.ac.uk/25730/1/84-A...
You're such an egomaniac that you don't see how others use language.
November 29, 2025 at 11:30 PM
An illicit analogy is simply a false analogy, like "a cow is to grass what a shotgun is to a tree". Here's some examples of where the phrase is used: pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/ws/portalfil...
repository.essex.ac.uk/25730/1/84-A...
You're such an egomaniac that you don't see how others use language.
repository.essex.ac.uk/25730/1/84-A...
You're such an egomaniac that you don't see how others use language.
I DID produce evidence. But anyway, that study not only fits what I actually said ("Within safe limits, it reduces stroke risk"), but it didn't establish causality. You can't read.
November 29, 2025 at 11:18 PM
I DID produce evidence. But anyway, that study not only fits what I actually said ("Within safe limits, it reduces stroke risk"), but it didn't establish causality. You can't read.
Wow, you're somehow making yourself EVEN DUMBER!
"similarly to how anger can" IS A COMPARISON! It means: "laughter and anger are similar in how they can cause your head to explode". Comparisons don't have to be about ALL attributes of those things. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/c...
"similarly to how anger can" IS A COMPARISON! It means: "laughter and anger are similar in how they can cause your head to explode". Comparisons don't have to be about ALL attributes of those things. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/c...
November 29, 2025 at 11:13 PM
Wow, you're somehow making yourself EVEN DUMBER!
"similarly to how anger can" IS A COMPARISON! It means: "laughter and anger are similar in how they can cause your head to explode". Comparisons don't have to be about ALL attributes of those things. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/c...
"similarly to how anger can" IS A COMPARISON! It means: "laughter and anger are similar in how they can cause your head to explode". Comparisons don't have to be about ALL attributes of those things. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/c...
You're right, I DON'T care what biologists say, because I prefer to talk about the concept as it's used non-technically, or at least OUTSIDE biology, where biologists' perversion of the concept doesn't dominate. I told you WHAT I WAS USING THOSE ARTICLES TO SPECIFICALLY PROVE already.
November 29, 2025 at 9:45 PM
You're right, I DON'T care what biologists say, because I prefer to talk about the concept as it's used non-technically, or at least OUTSIDE biology, where biologists' perversion of the concept doesn't dominate. I told you WHAT I WAS USING THOSE ARTICLES TO SPECIFICALLY PROVE already.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25323972/
Hey, look at the word "biologically"! What's it doing there? Maybe... it's to give further context and hint that he's outlining how THE TRADITIONAL BIOLOGIST'S DEFINITION OF "SEX" makes that concept work!
That's not the same as discussing the everyday concept!
Hey, look at the word "biologically"! What's it doing there? Maybe... it's to give further context and hint that he's outlining how THE TRADITIONAL BIOLOGIST'S DEFINITION OF "SEX" makes that concept work!
That's not the same as discussing the everyday concept!
November 29, 2025 at 9:42 PM
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25323972/
Hey, look at the word "biologically"! What's it doing there? Maybe... it's to give further context and hint that he's outlining how THE TRADITIONAL BIOLOGIST'S DEFINITION OF "SEX" makes that concept work!
That's not the same as discussing the everyday concept!
Hey, look at the word "biologically"! What's it doing there? Maybe... it's to give further context and hint that he's outlining how THE TRADITIONAL BIOLOGIST'S DEFINITION OF "SEX" makes that concept work!
That's not the same as discussing the everyday concept!
Once again: I NEVER supported the definition outlined in any of those three articles. I'm more sympathetic to the MW ones. Definitions are things you can choose to use as you wish, but you'd better choose carefully if you want others to understand you. It's a matter of convention. Already said this.
November 29, 2025 at 9:22 PM
Once again: I NEVER supported the definition outlined in any of those three articles. I'm more sympathetic to the MW ones. Definitions are things you can choose to use as you wish, but you'd better choose carefully if you want others to understand you. It's a matter of convention. Already said this.
Pathetic! I posted THREE articles all supporting the actual point I made (that the traditional biologists' definition is NOT about the genome, and that phenotype is NOT about genitalia) This article is at odds with biologists' consensus. Dismissed.
November 29, 2025 at 8:55 PM
Pathetic! I posted THREE articles all supporting the actual point I made (that the traditional biologists' definition is NOT about the genome, and that phenotype is NOT about genitalia) This article is at odds with biologists' consensus. Dismissed.
You should try to say what my argument actually is and quote me on that.
I NEVER said that I agree to use the traditional biologists' definition of sex. All along, I've been saying that EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THAT DEFINITION, SEX IS PHENOTYPIC. You seriously can't read.
I NEVER said that I agree to use the traditional biologists' definition of sex. All along, I've been saying that EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THAT DEFINITION, SEX IS PHENOTYPIC. You seriously can't read.
November 29, 2025 at 8:45 PM
You should try to say what my argument actually is and quote me on that.
I NEVER said that I agree to use the traditional biologists' definition of sex. All along, I've been saying that EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THAT DEFINITION, SEX IS PHENOTYPIC. You seriously can't read.
I NEVER said that I agree to use the traditional biologists' definition of sex. All along, I've been saying that EVEN IF YOU ACCEPT THAT DEFINITION, SEX IS PHENOTYPIC. You seriously can't read.
You're so utterly stupid. Gamete production IS PHENOTYPIC. It is NOT some permutation of the genome, though it is CAUSED by one. You don't need to even look at someone's genome to see what gonads they have or what gametes they can produce. IDIOT!
November 29, 2025 at 8:33 PM
You're so utterly stupid. Gamete production IS PHENOTYPIC. It is NOT some permutation of the genome, though it is CAUSED by one. You don't need to even look at someone's genome to see what gonads they have or what gametes they can produce. IDIOT!
Stop changing the subject on different threads. Again: my answer depends on what kind of definition we're using. I've been over this so, so, SO many times. Keep coping.
November 29, 2025 at 8:26 PM
Stop changing the subject on different threads. Again: my answer depends on what kind of definition we're using. I've been over this so, so, SO many times. Keep coping.
SSDs: average waist-to-hip ratio, head shape, resting vocal pitch, etc. Too many for me to bother to list.
Non-biological variations: you KNOW that means "non-biological variations of definitions". MW already covers this.
Non-biological variations: you KNOW that means "non-biological variations of definitions". MW already covers this.
November 29, 2025 at 8:11 PM
SSDs: average waist-to-hip ratio, head shape, resting vocal pitch, etc. Too many for me to bother to list.
Non-biological variations: you KNOW that means "non-biological variations of definitions". MW already covers this.
Non-biological variations: you KNOW that means "non-biological variations of definitions". MW already covers this.
This is how I KNOW you're stupid. They're right there, under the first link!
Here they are again, since you are so stupid or lazy or deceitful (or all of those):
academic.oup.com/molehr/artic...
aeon.co/essays/the-e...
Here they are again, since you are so stupid or lazy or deceitful (or all of those):
academic.oup.com/molehr/artic...
aeon.co/essays/the-e...
November 29, 2025 at 8:03 PM
This is how I KNOW you're stupid. They're right there, under the first link!
Here they are again, since you are so stupid or lazy or deceitful (or all of those):
academic.oup.com/molehr/artic...
aeon.co/essays/the-e...
Here they are again, since you are so stupid or lazy or deceitful (or all of those):
academic.oup.com/molehr/artic...
aeon.co/essays/the-e...
Wrong! Look at what I highlighted at the bottom.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex
You're full of shit. Put on your glasses, oldie.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex
You're full of shit. Put on your glasses, oldie.
November 29, 2025 at 7:58 PM
Wrong! Look at what I highlighted at the bottom.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex
You're full of shit. Put on your glasses, oldie.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex
You're full of shit. Put on your glasses, oldie.
Yes, and I can also use a dictionary correctly. Can you read this properly? Can you spot the lack of the words "gene", "genome", "chromosome", "karyotype", and any applicable plurals of those words?
November 29, 2025 at 7:38 PM
Yes, and I can also use a dictionary correctly. Can you read this properly? Can you spot the lack of the words "gene", "genome", "chromosome", "karyotype", and any applicable plurals of those words?
You had no good reason to start talking about the WP article about "biological sex". It wasn't relevant to the matter at hand. You basically left something I said unanswered in a desperate attempt to distract me. And it didn't even work!
November 29, 2025 at 6:41 PM
You had no good reason to start talking about the WP article about "biological sex". It wasn't relevant to the matter at hand. You basically left something I said unanswered in a desperate attempt to distract me. And it didn't even work!
When you mockingly say "ooh, a wiki article!!!" immediately in response to someone posting one, that usually counts as a criticism of their choice to post a Wikipedia article, itself usually implying the irrelevance or untruthworthiness of Wikipedia or at least that article.
November 29, 2025 at 6:39 PM
When you mockingly say "ooh, a wiki article!!!" immediately in response to someone posting one, that usually counts as a criticism of their choice to post a Wikipedia article, itself usually implying the irrelevance or untruthworthiness of Wikipedia or at least that article.
Keep coping. You changed the topic AFTER I posted that Wikipedia article on the Japanese "alt-right". I got no need to admit to any bullshit. Yet again, you can't keep of a conversation.
November 29, 2025 at 12:16 PM
Keep coping. You changed the topic AFTER I posted that Wikipedia article on the Japanese "alt-right". I got no need to admit to any bullshit. Yet again, you can't keep of a conversation.
You KNOW that's not the article I was talking about, idiot. The one I "just posted" (and NOT one I posted much earlier) was here:
bsky.app/profile/test...
Even when I linked that WP article on "biological sex", I posted more sources anyway, so you can go and suck on that.
bsky.app/profile/test...
Even when I linked that WP article on "biological sex", I posted more sources anyway, so you can go and suck on that.
November 29, 2025 at 12:02 PM
You KNOW that's not the article I was talking about, idiot. The one I "just posted" (and NOT one I posted much earlier) was here:
bsky.app/profile/test...
Even when I linked that WP article on "biological sex", I posted more sources anyway, so you can go and suck on that.
bsky.app/profile/test...
Even when I linked that WP article on "biological sex", I posted more sources anyway, so you can go and suck on that.
YOU need help reading a bunch of dictionaries FOR A LANGUAGE THAT YOU'RE A NATIVE SPEAKER OF!
I have used the word "answer" in a perfectly permissible way. It does not need to be correct or even relevant to the question.
I have used the word "answer" in a perfectly permissible way. It does not need to be correct or even relevant to the question.
![Meaning of answer in English
answer
noun [ C ]
uk
/ˈɑːn.sər/ us
/ˈæn.sɚ/
answer noun [C] (REACTION)
Add to word list
A1
a reaction to a question, letter, phone call, etc.:
in answer to In answer to your letter of 30 May, I am writing to accept your offer of £3,575 in compensation.
The minister promised to give a written answer to the MP's detailed question.
We've emailed him asking him if he's free on that date but we haven't had an answer yet.
I've just called him but there was no answer.
I didn't realize we had to write each answer on a new sheet of paper.
I got eight correct answers and two wrong ones in last week's exam.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jwlvuqsant4iwp4ca7fokbdk/bafkreih6eeldragdn2ypqbxpsytkc3smo2f7c5zuwwvuynd2f4gupjy3i4@jpeg)
![https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/answer#answer__1
answer
(ɑːnsəʳ IPA Pronunciation Guide , æn- IPA Pronunciation Guide )
Word forms: answers , answering , answered
1. verb A1
When you answer someone who has asked you something, you say something back to them.
I knew Ben was lying when he answered me. [VERB noun]
Just answer the question. [VERB noun]
He paused before answering. [VERB]
'When?' asked Alba, 'Tonight,' answered Tom. [VERB with quote]
Williams answered that he had no specific proposals yet. [VERB that]
Synonyms: reply, explain, respond, resolve More Synonyms of answer
2. countable noun [oft in N to n] A1
An answer is something that you say when you answer someone.
Without waiting for an answer, he turned and went in through the door.
I don't quite know what to say in answer to your question.
Synonyms: reply, response, reaction, resolution More Synonyms of answer](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jwlvuqsant4iwp4ca7fokbdk/bafkreie34zq6l4bjwdkvqzlihaugbacxyfq52bnij74hcda4grcz7q7gru@jpeg)
November 29, 2025 at 11:35 AM
YOU need help reading a bunch of dictionaries FOR A LANGUAGE THAT YOU'RE A NATIVE SPEAKER OF!
I have used the word "answer" in a perfectly permissible way. It does not need to be correct or even relevant to the question.
I have used the word "answer" in a perfectly permissible way. It does not need to be correct or even relevant to the question.
So many blocked and missing posts. I won't even bother to alt text them, since I can pull up many of these. And I can find more. I simply can't see what you said to the fool. If you can see it, why not post it to me? Humiliate me even more.
November 29, 2025 at 11:28 AM
So many blocked and missing posts. I won't even bother to alt text them, since I can pull up many of these. And I can find more. I simply can't see what you said to the fool. If you can see it, why not post it to me? Humiliate me even more.
In fact, unlike you, I'll post some proof for my claims on pronouns.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammat...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/n...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex
www.csun.edu/~sk36711/WWW...
MW doesn't even say sex is about genes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammat...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/n...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex
www.csun.edu/~sk36711/WWW...
MW doesn't even say sex is about genes.
November 29, 2025 at 2:28 AM
In fact, unlike you, I'll post some proof for my claims on pronouns.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammat...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/n...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex
www.csun.edu/~sk36711/WWW...
MW doesn't even say sex is about genes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammat...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/n...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex
www.csun.edu/~sk36711/WWW...
MW doesn't even say sex is about genes.
Did "Jimbo" block me? Someone mighta scared "him" off. Funny it it was my crusty ass!
Maybe it's cus I kept going with my thread, and I said something REALLY scary. Hope you read it. bsky.app/profile/test...
Maybe it's cus I kept going with my thread, and I said something REALLY scary. Hope you read it. bsky.app/profile/test...
November 28, 2025 at 11:05 PM
Did "Jimbo" block me? Someone mighta scared "him" off. Funny it it was my crusty ass!
Maybe it's cus I kept going with my thread, and I said something REALLY scary. Hope you read it. bsky.app/profile/test...
Maybe it's cus I kept going with my thread, and I said something REALLY scary. Hope you read it. bsky.app/profile/test...
I saw that, but I also saw how they actually define p-excuses. Despite the impression they give in the abstract, I didn't see them outright say that they mislead folks into attributing undue significance. Some might read "marginally significant" as "basically not TRULY significant".
November 18, 2025 at 2:05 PM
I saw that, but I also saw how they actually define p-excuses. Despite the impression they give in the abstract, I didn't see them outright say that they mislead folks into attributing undue significance. Some might read "marginally significant" as "basically not TRULY significant".