> You mentioned "all phrases must have only one meaning...is obviously not true". I pointed out that, while technically correct, it is a misleading irrelevancy.

That is one way your claim could be satisfied as true, I was pointing out it fails.

> Next to it we have the claim that "clear the breeding arena" cannot have a single meaning.

No, I do not make that claim, it was stated as a alternative condition that if satisfied could make your assertion true: "the particular phrase "clear the breeding arena" must have a pre-determined and singular meaning"

> If Molyneux were a rancher referring to his bull's pen, then yes I'd get a shovel instead. But he isn't. So the point is esoteric to the point of irrelevance.

Whether the phrase has an actual accepted meaning of what you say is not irrelevant, but I can see how you'd like that to be considered irrelevant.

> Actually I'm restating it the same way because that is sufficient: I understand English thus I understand the phrase as well as its author.

Yet, you can present no evidence demonstrating this, and it is clearly contrary to the meaning he used in the context of its usage. Have you even listened to the clip in question?

>> There aren't any examples of meanings for that phrase

> Correct, not every permutation of every possible English phrases has been explicitly defined. If that were necessary, language would be useless. It would also be circular since every definition would need to be defined too.

And therefore you can make up any meaning you like an expect it to be accepted?

> But just as we learned above the word "eugenics" has one clear dictionary definition, so too does the phrase in question.

a) There may be one dictionary meaning, but as already discussed, reality is independent of the words we use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics has significant discussion about a variety of different meanings.

b) "so too does the phrase in question" - a claim for which you provide no evidence.

>> Short of the ability to read his mind, how do you know your inferred meaning is correct?

> Because that's how language works generally. We don't have Cartesian certainty if that's what you mean.

You can claim any phrase with no pre-existing accepted meaning means whatever you want, because "that's how language works generally"?

>> he clearly had a meaning very different than what you are claiming

> Which is? The answer to this one question would have saved a lot of typing.

The environment in which he is raising his daughter.

You actually listening to what he actually said would have also saved a lot of typing.

> On the contrary "the whole code base needs to be cleaned of bugs" unambiguously means eliminate them to both the speaker and listener.

Yes, because phrase has a broadly accepted prior meaning: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=the+whole...

> I need not google the phase to know with certainty what it means.

You also seem to believe you need no evidence, or to even listen to the actual context of how it was used.

> Note the grammatical similarity to "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned [of crazy people]"

Are you suggesting "grammatical similarity" is some sort of a proof? Is this another one of those "how language works generally" situations?

>> without (apparently) even listening to what he actually said

On the contrary I know very well what he is saying and on a variety of topics.

This is not contrary to what I said, which was that you apparently haven't listened to what he even said when using the phrase being debated.

> Which is why I know he is just a Arthur de Gobineau clone and not a rancher (which alone proves he's a white supremacist, by the way)

He is a proven white supremacist because he's not a rancher, or because you "know" he is a clone of a historic figure?

> A cult has a central thought leader who makes money spouting nonsense. So no, identifying white supremacists is not cult like.

a) Wikipedia disagrees with you again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

b) Even if it was true that all cults have a central thought leader, it does not logically follow that some behavior is not cult-like. You were the one who introduced this phrase into the conversation by the way, with regard to how people accept ideas: "When a face on youtube with the right look and right words gives a facile world theory that claims the listener's problems are someone else's fault and they are better than everyone else, it's accepted by many with cult like zeal."

> Although I can imagine victims like Heather Heyer's parents et co may have a strong emotional response. Unless of course we think the incident was a complete driving accident because we can't google the drivers intent at the time.

I've seen no one other than you suggest that was an accident, but if I did I'd disagree with them. I can also acknowledge the possibility that rhetoric from the likes of Molyneux could plausibly have contributed to that incident, in case you were thinking (or implying, planting a seed in the mind of readers) I'd make some argument otherwise.

>>> Also remarkable are the ever present comments of those who believe a guy in his den with a web cam has the secret truth while all the real journalists in the world have coordinated a left wing conspiracy.

>> I bet this is your imagination working again. Regardless, Noam Chomsky has a theory of how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLcpcytUnWU

> A theory. On youtube. Honestly that site has take 20IQ points off of mankind.

Not sure I see your point. Is the quality or accuracy of an idea affected by where it is hosted?

> And Chomsky is claiming the profit driven media _suppresses_ left leaning ideas to favor right leaning

No, he is discussing the mechanics of how the content of journalism can be influenced without an organized conspiracy existing, which was your claim. ("Also remarkable are the ever present comments of those who believe a guy in his den with a web cam has the secret truth while all the real journalists in the world have coordinated a left wing conspiracy.")

> And while an extremely plausible, even likely theory, it is hardly proven to anything like the degree we seem to be insisting on for simple English sentences

I'm simply pointing out that a highly regarded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Academic_achievem...) academic disagrees with the idea that a conspiracy is necessary for control to be exerted over journalists.

> Yet they are convinced they have evidence which, in addition to youtube, no doubt was revealed in prayer or heard from uncle Jeb.

You also seem to be convinced you have evidence that supports your belief, but will post no record of it.

> They also are never going to believe anything written by reality based media or found in a science paper because their demagogue, like all others, seeks to crush the press via his followers.

You know with certainty the specifics of how millions of people will behave in the future?

> On a related note, it is possible that if a group of people known to be rational, bright and well informed have developed a consensus, it might not actually be an emotional response but just possibly be correct.

Oh, it's certainly possible for it to be true, the question is whether there is evidence that it is true.

So, is there? If so, would you mind providing some in this thread?