3 ms·

Your response is (intentionally?) incomplete. Talking about integrity... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity https://www.merriam-webster.com/d

• coldtea 5y ago
  My response is about integrity as it pertains to the discussion - as a property of a person. Note that (2) and (3) are not about people. We don't say that someone who is not impaired (in "an unimpaired condition") has "integrity". We call them able and other things. We don't say that someone who is "complete or undivided" has integrity either (we use the term "complete" for humans, but there it means something like satisfied or fulfilled). (2) and (3) are not about integrity as in "X has integrity". It's about integrity as a property of things, in usages like "structural integrity", "mechanical Integrity" (the same sense used when we talk about "integrals" and so on). And you made it sound like I did something nefarious. Talking about integrity (1).
  • torstenvl 5y ago
    > Note that (2) and (3) are not about people. False. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity > (2) and (3) are not about integrity as in "X has integrity" False. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity > And you made it sound like I did something nefarious. You did. In a discussion about whether a word's meaning was narrow or broad, you argued it was narrow by citing its definition -- but left out every part of its definition that didn't align with your argument.