Well thanks. I’m glad to see that even though denied it, at least you can vaguely recognize it.
It is a fact that most of us already know what the word “circle” means i.e. what phenomenon it refers to. And if someone does not then we can help them understand what we mean by the word “circle” by using non-verbal communication. Remember that non-verbal communication precedes – it is more fundamental than – verbal communication. All you need is a finger with which you can point at things that are associated with the word and things that are NOT associated with the word. This is one of the simplest ways to learn the meaning of words. There are even simpler approaches than that and they involve the use of some kind of force. Violence is a form of communication. You can also use verbal communication in order to explain what your words mean but this involves describing what you mean by your words using some other words – those that are familiar to the other side. This helps you get your point across quicker but the risk that you will be misunderstood is higher.
I am pretty sure that all participants in this threads share the same exact understanding of what circles are. There is thus no need to explain what they are. The disagreement is regarding MATHEMATICAL or LOGICAL MODELS of circles. For example, James models circles in terms of radius whereas UrWrong models them in terms of sides. What they are doing is they are taking one object (circles) and bringing them into relation with another object (radius, sides.) James says that UrWrong’s approach is wrong because it is not how Google describes circles. If that’s not autistic then I don’t know what is.
I think that people who place too much emphasis on language are people who are too socially dependent.
Very feminine.
Google’s definition is thousands of years old, not in dispute, and taught throughout the world. The version that involves sides, is, as far as I know, taught no where. It is Urwrong’s fallacious invention.
Such words are not up for you or he to redefine and expect to be respected for it.
Yes, but “most of us”, obviously doesn’t include you or Urwrong.
You over credit yourself.
You pay too much attention to irrelevant things and make too much fuss about nothing.
That’s the problem I have with you.
In other words, you suffer from autism.
When someone says something like “circles are polygons with an infinite number of sides” they are not “redefining” circles but merely providing an alternative logical model of them.
Most importantly, they are NOT rejecting – or at least it is nowhere implied that they are rejecting – the standard model of circles (which involves the concept of equidistance.)
You’re too rigid.
Of course you are too rigid, you are autistic.
And this is not the first I come across such a way of conceptualizing circles.
Maybe it’s not taught in schools, I don’t know, but so what?
What exactly is your point?
Oh right, you have no point, you’re simply autistic.
You ruined this discussion – you reduced it to petty arguments – thanks to your pedantry.
There’s absolutely NOTHING that you are adding to the discussion (whether it is that concerning causality or the tangential discussion concerning circles.)
If you were at least telling us that UrWrong’s model of circles is less precise than the standard model, then at least there would be some substance to what you’re saying.
But as it is, your posts are without any substance.
Waste of fucking time.
“Fallacious invention”.
Holy fucking shit.
You think that people who described circles the first OWN these circles?
Is that the severity of your retardation?
See how stupid you are?
You don’t even UNDERSTAND what I said.
Moron, people understood what circles are long before there was anyone to describe them in terms of equidistance.
Not all life is verbal.
Language and what makes it work is hardly “nothing” when communicating over the Internet is all you have.
Your attempts to corrupt and destroy the only language you have is more than a little self defeating, naive, and stupid - a child starting a fire in his own bed.
Noone is destroying language, moron.
When you say something like “circles are polygons with an infinite number of sides” you are not corrupting language but merely using it to express your logical model of circles.
The problem is you are AUTISTIC which means you take words TOO LITERALLY.
And when you cannot understand them literally you scream LANGUAGE GAMES.
You are embarassing yourself, James.
I am serious.
And there I was thinking that at least you had looked up what “autism” means.
But then for people who invent their own definition of words, I guess that I shouldn’t be surprised by anything they state.
We both know that autists have a problem with colloquial language.
They take words too literally.
Don’t play dumb.
You are textbook autistic.
They don’t “take words too literally” in the sense that you are thinking (using the word loosely). They miscomprehended. Their lack of ability to attend to their surroundings causes them to not pickup on common social behaviors and implications. As a result, they find themselves desperately trying to communicate and making excuses for their misuse of words. One of their primary excuses is "But it is all relative. It could be true. Words can mean different things to different people. What is true for one isn’t true for everyone. Everyone has their own reality…"
And you really shouldn’t reference textbooks until you bother to actually read and comprehend one. Of course the problem is that you will never know whether you comprehended it or not. You will just desperately try to make sense out of the words, come up with some guess, and then insist that you have perfectly understood the true meaning (all of which will be BS).
The point is that you focus on insignificant details.
Your criticisms are pointless. They are utterly moronic. There is nothing anyone can possibly learn from them. They merely irritate.
You said absolutely nothing of value in this thread.
You merely spam.
First, you really should refrain from typing while looking in the mirror.
But more importantly, the issue of what “a circle” means was an argument going on long before I interjected. I quoted a dictionary. From that You and UrWrong chose to argue endlessly, ignoring the very definition of the word, later excusing yourselves by claiming that definitions are irrelevant. 
Of course, if you were capable of thinking before declaring truth, you might have noticed that before focusing on your last ad hom, irrelevant, and “moronic”, derailing diatribe.
Your pedantry is omnipresent. It’s not merely this thread that suffers from it. It’s the entire forum that does so.
And almost noone shares your autistic sentiment, just to remind you.
We knew what circles are LONG BEFORE there was language.
You don’t need to be able to describe circles using words in order to know what circles are.
So when someone argues against the idea that “circles are polygons with an infinite number of sides” what they are doing is they are comparing this statement, not against reality, but against other words.
The statement matches PRETTY WELL against reality.
So only pedants – autistic people, people with no ability to think laterally or holistically – find it problematic.
Basically, people who are too conservative – rigid, inflexible, unadaptable, unwelcoming of change – find it problematic.
You know, the ones who think everyone who disagrees with them is a liberal nihilist.
You are merely proving my last post.
And if you don’t like to be reminded of definitions, perhaps you should learn them before getting into arguments that concern them.
And in addition, another point that your “autism” characteristic didn’t notice, is that you and UrWrong were telling Arc that she was “wrong”. Yet, by your own argument, and even if you were right, she was still NOT wrong.
You and UrWrong falsely accused. And that is what happens when people ignore the details (the Devil’s pride and joy).
You don’t get it, don’t you?
People understand what the word “circle” means and they do so independently from dictionary definitions.
We all know intuitively what circles are.
We knew that LONG BEFORE there was any language.
There is no need for dictionaries.
So when somene clings onto dictionary definitions this indicates there is some kind of problem with them.
That their intuition is weak.
That they are . . . autistic.
You are the protector of autism.
Very proud of being autistic.
I am happy for you.
It must be very good to be autistic.
There was no mistake. You and Arc both claimed that circles do not have sides, have “zero sides”. Therefore you are saying this is not a circle:
As I explained before. That picture is CIRCULAR.
As Magnus pointed out, those who pay too little attention while growing up, assume too much about their misunderstandings concerning language as well as many other issues.
In common English, anything vaguely similar to a circle is often called a “circle” by those having no need to be particularly precise. When young people are not educated, they begin to think that the word “circle” means anything vaguely circular. Quite the opposite of Magnus’ programming, learning language from common guttural usage is NOT the best way unless one never intends to understand or accomplish any more than guttural status. “Ignorant and foolish people talk like this. Thus this is the way to talk.” Only ignorant and foolish people think like that.
The more to-the-point concern is that it is a false accusation to declare someone to be wrong when they say that circles have no sides. Even if you want to claim that anything circular is “a circle” (foolish for several reasons), that still doesn’t make Arc wrong. And mathematics does NOT claim that a circle has infinite sides.
So you admit that you say it’s not a circle. As expected.
You are in the minority. Because shapes are approximations. Nobody really cares about ‘perfect’ exactitude. A carpenter working on a house has to deal with bends in what people call “straight” planks of wood.
Nuance is lost on you James. You seem to have trouble understanding the gray areas, the bends in a piece of wood.
Actually, you just admitted that you are wrong.
You just stated that “shapes” are “approximations”.
A circular shape is an approximations to what? - To an actual, un-approximated circle - one that has no sides at all.
You are the one who just shot himself in the foot (shame it was in your mouth at the time 
).
All shapes have sides.
Again this is Elementary school knowledge. You and Arc are still wrong.