>The vast majority of utterances is not the topic of discussion

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.

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

>You are restating your claim in a different way

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.

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

>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.

> 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.

> I doubt you'd think using this form of a proof on a different topic

On the contrary "the whole code base needs to be cleaned of bugs" unambiguously means eliminate them to both the speaker and listener. The sole ambiguity is when. I won't be questioned for having that understanding. I need not google the phase to know with certainty what it means. Note the grammatical similarity to "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned [of crazy people]"

>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. 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)

>As are accusations of white supremacy. Cult like zeal is a great description for this behavior.

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

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.

>Another explanation is that they agree with the phrases, at least partially. That's the case with me.

Of course they agree. That is why I offered the partial explanation you are referring to. If he didn't have followers we would not have a problem. But 1946 is 73 years ago so what would have been zero followers has grown to a mob.

And "Nazism" is comically over used. The new batch of right wing autocrats implement similar but weaker policies with less violence and a smile rather than a scowl. Franco or Mussolini are a better but flawed comparisons. Especially the latter since his exact words and gestures are conscientiously imitated.

>...has a theory...youtube...

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

And Chomsky is claiming the profit driven media _suppresses_ left leaning ideas to favor right leaning, the opposite of promulgating them. 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. Also he is speaking on the BBC which is telling.

>Believing things with no evidence isn't surprising coming from simple minded Trump supporters

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

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.