K is for kreatophagia

Kreatophagia:  Eating of raw meat.   Eating, or consuming, poisoned meat
(affix phag, phage, phago or phagous, etc. from the Greek phagein, meaning to eat.)

L is for Lugubrious

Lugubrious: mournful, dismal, or gloomy, especially in an affected, exaggerated, or unrelieved manner: lugubrious songs of lost love.

Loquacious:  Very talkative; garrulous. 

Laconic: Concise 

 

 

V is Venal

Venal:

Capable of being bought or obtained for money or other valuable consideration : purchasable; especially : open to corrupt influence and especially bribery : mercenary <a venal legislator>

2: originating in, characterized by, or associated with corrupt bribery

 

M is for mendacious

MENDACIOUS = telling lies, esp. habitually; dishonest.

Metrophobi: Fear of Poetry

minacious:   from Latin minax,  from minārī  to threaten (1650 origin)
or minaceous:  Of the color of minium or red lead; miniate
Quote: "Of Mulsims I find them both minacious and mendacious!"

Mennonite

The Mennonites are a Protestant group based around the church communities of the Christian Anabaptist denominations named after Menno Simons (1496–1561) of Friesland (at that time, a part of the German Holy Roman Empire). Through his writings, Simons articulated and formalized the teachings of earlier Swiss founders. The teachings of the Mennonites were founded on their belief in both the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ, which they held to with great conviction despite persecution by the various Roman Catholic and Protestant states. Rather than fight, the majority survived by fleeing to neighboring states where ruling families were tolerant of their radical belief in believer's baptism. Over the years, Mennonites have become known as one of the historic peace churches because of their commitment to pacifism (opposition to war and violence).  There are about 1.7 million Mennonites worldwide as of 2012

Some of the followers of Zwingli's Reformed church thought that requiring church membership beginning at birth was inconsistent with the New Testament example. They believed that the church should be completely removed from government (the proto–free church tradition), and that individuals should join only when willing to publicly acknowledge belief in Jesus and the desire to live in accordance with his teachings. At a small meeting in Zurich on Jan 21, 1525, Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, and George Blaurock, along with twelve others, baptized each other.^[14] This meeting marks the beginning of the Anabaptist movement. In the spirit of the times, many groups followed, preaching about reducing hierarchy, relations with the state, eschatology, and sexual license, running from utter abandon to extreme chastity. These movements are together referred to as the Radical Reformation.
Many government and religious leaders, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, considered voluntary church membership to be dangerous—the concern of some deepened by reports of the Münster Rebellion, led by a violent sect of Anabaptists. They joined forces to fight the movement, using methods such as banishment, torture, burning, drowning or beheading

Murmuration: The starlings are generally a highly social family. Most species associate in flocks of varying sizes throughout the year. A flock of starlings is called a murmuration.
Here is a list of collective nouns:

MAMMON: in the New Testament of the Bible, is material wealth or greed, most often personified as a deity, and sometimes included in the seven princes of Hell.  Christians began to use the name of Mammon as a pejorative, a term that was used to describe gluttony and unjust worldly gain in Biblical literature. It was personified as a false god in the New Testament. {Mt.6.24; Lk.16.13} The term is often used to refer to excessive materialism or greed as a negative influence.

MENmEMendaciousmENDACIOUS

Mendacious

N is for Nosisim

nosism:  use of royal "we"; assumption of role of group mouthpiece

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All invalid arguments are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.

Non sequitur in everyday speech

See also: Derailment (thought disorder)

In everyday speech, a non sequitur is a statement in which the final part is totally unrelated to the first part, for example:

Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.

—West with the Night, Beryl Markham^[2]

It can also refer to a response that is totally unrelated to the original statement or question:

Mary: I wonder how Mrs. Knowles' next-door neighbor is doing.
Jim: Did you hear that the convenience store two blocks over got robbed last night? Thieves got away with a small fortune.

Fallacy of the undistributed middle

Main article: Fallacy of the undistributed middle

The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed. It is thus a syllogistic fallacy. More specifically it is also a form of non sequitur.
The fallacy of the undistributed middle takes the following form:

1. All Zs are Bs.
2. Y is a B.
3. Therefore, Y is a Z.

It may or may not be the case that "all Zs are Bs," but in either case it is irrelevant to the conclusion. What is relevant to the conclusion is whether it is true that "all Bs are Zs," which is ignored in the argument.
Note that if the terms were swapped around in the first co-premise then it would no longer be a fallacy, although it could still be unsound. This also holds for the following two fallacies which are similar in nature to the fallacy of the undistributed middle and also non sequiturs.
An example can be given as follows:

1. All men are humans.
2. Mary is human.
3. Therefore, Mary is a man.

Affirming the consequent

Main article: Affirming the consequent

Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur

1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. B is true.
3. Therefore, A is true.

Even if the premises and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises. This sort of non sequitur is also called affirming the consequent.
An example of affirming the consequent would be:

1. If Jackson is a human (A) then Jackson is a mammal. (B)
2. Jackson is a mammal. (B)
3. Therefore, Jackson is a human. (A)

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises: 'Jackson' could be another type of mammal without also being a human. The truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of its premises - it is a 'non sequitur'.
Affirming the consequent is essentially the same as the fallacy of the undistributed middle, but using propositions rather than set membership.

Denying the antecedent

Main article: Denying the antecedent

Another common non sequitur is this:

1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. A is false.
3. Therefore, B is false.

While B can indeed be false, this cannot be linked to the premise since the statement is a non sequitur. This is called denying the antecedent.
An example of denying the antecedent would be:

1. If I am Japanese, then I am Asian.
2. I am not Japanese.
3. Therefore, I am not Asian.

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises. For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement could be Asian, but for example Chinese, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

Affirming a disjunct

Main article: Affirming a disjunct

Affirming a disjunct is a fallacy when in the following form:

1. A is true or B is true.
2. B is true.
3. Therefore, A is not true.*

The conclusion does not follow from the premises as it could be the case that A and B are both true. This fallacy stems from the stated definition of or in propositional logic to be inclusive.
An example of affirming a disjunct would be:

1. I am at home or I am in the city.
2. I am at home.
3. Therefore, I am not in the city.

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises. For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could be in both the city and their home, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

• Note that this is only a logical fallacy when "or" is inclusive. If the two possibilities in question are mutually exclusive, this is not a logical fallacy. For example

1. The light is either on or off.
2. The light is off.
3. Therefore the light is not on.

Denying a conjunct

Main article: Denying a conjunct

Denying a conjunct is a fallacy when in the following form:

1. It is not the case that both A is true and B is true.
2. B is not true.
3. Therefore, A is true.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises as it could be the case that A and B are both false.
An example of denying a conjunct would be:

1. It is not the case that both I am at home and I am in the city.
2. I am not at home.
3. Therefore, I am in the city.

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises. For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could neither be at home nor in the city, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

neologise =

to make or use new words or create new meanings for existing words.

2.

to devise or accept new religious doctrines.

O is for Onomastics

Onomastics or onomatology is the study of proper names of all kinds and the origins of names. The words are from the Greek: "ὀνομαστικός" (onomastikos), "of or belonging to naming" and "ὀνοματολογία" (onomatologia), from "ὄνομα" (ónoma) "name".Toponymy or toponomastics, the study of place names, is one of the principal branches of onomastics. Anthroponomastics is the study of personal names.

ONTOLOGY:  Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.
Parmenides was among the first to propose an ontological characterization of the fundamental nature of reality.  He was the founder of the Eleatic school of philosophy  (500 BCE)

Further examples of ontological questions include:^{[citation needed]}

• What is existence, i.e. what does it mean for a being to be?
• Is existence a property?
• Is existence a genus or general class that is simply divided up by specific differences?
• Which entities, if any, are fundamental? Are all entities objects?
• How do the properties of an object relate to the object itself?
• What features are the essential, as opposed to merely accidental attributes of a given object?
• How many levels of existence or ontological levels are there? And what constitutes a 'level'?
• What is a physical object?
• Can one give an account of what it means to say that a physical object exists?
• Can one give an account of what it means to say that a non-physical entity exists?
• What constitutes the identity of an object?
• When does an object go out of existence, as opposed to merely changing?
• Do beings exist other than in the modes of objectivity and subjectivity, i.e. is the subject/object split of modern philosophy inevitable?

 

P is for Pogrom

Pogrom = An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, especially one conducted against Jews.

PUTSCH  AND Putschist   a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force.   PUTCHIST: One who takes part in a putsch

Paradigm  (par-uh-dahym,)  

a framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of a scientific community.

Such a cognitive framework shared by members of any discipline or group: the company’s business paradigm.

A set of forms all of which contain a particular element, especially the set of all inflected forms based on a single stem or theme.

A paradigm is basically a way of thinking so like it is a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices constituting a view of reality.

Any fact that people agree upon 

All religions are paradigms which is simply a belief system, where belief is accepted as knowledge and used to regulate and direct a persons life according to said belief(s)

Please note: Belief accepted as knowledge does not necessarily make it true knowledge 

Pyrrhic  

A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with such a devastating cost that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit (another term for this would be "hollow victory").

Etymology[edit]

The phrase Pyrrhic victory is named after Greek King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating the Romans at Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279 BC during the Pyrrhic War. After the latter battle, Plutarch relates in a report by Dionysius:

The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war.

—Plutarch,

In both of Pyrrhus's victories, the Romans suffered greater casualties than Pyrrhus did. However, the Romans had a much larger supply of men from which to draw soldiers and their casualties did less damage to their war effort than Pyrrhus's casualties did to his.

The report is often quoted as "Another such victory and I come back to Epirus alone",^[3] or "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined."^[4]

The term is used as an analogy in fields such as business, politics, and sports to describe struggles that end up ruining the victor. Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, for example, commented on the necessity of coercion in preserving the course of justice by warning, "Moral reason must learn how to make coercion its ally without running the risk of a Pyrrhic victory in which the ally exploits and negates the triumph."^[5] Also, in Beauharnais v. Illinois, a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a charge proscribing group libel, Justice Hugo Black alluded to the Pyrrhic War in hisdissent: "If minority groups hail this holding as their victory, they might consider the possible relevancy of this ancient remark: 'Another such victory and I am undone.'"^[6]

Pragmatic [prægˈmætɪk]adj

1. advocating behaviour that is dictated more by practical consequences than by theory or dogma

2. (Philosophy) Philosophy of or relating to pragmatism.

Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that began in the United States around 1870. Pragmatism is a rejection of the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. Instead, pragmatists develop their philosophy around the idea that the function of thought is as an instrument or tool for prediction, action, and problem solving. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics--such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science--are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes rather than in terms of representative accuracy.
A few of the various but interrelated positions often characteristic of philosophers working from a pragmatist approach include:

• Anti-representationalism; any view in philosophy of language that rejects analyzing the semantic meaning of propositions, mental states, and statements in terms of a correspondence or representational relationship and instead analyzes semantic meaning in terms of notions like dispositions to action, inferential relationships, and/or functional roles (e.g. behaviorism and inferentialism). Not to be confused with pragmatics, a sub-field of linguistics with no relation to philosophical pragmatism.

• Coherentist theory of justification; a rejection of the epistemological claim that all knowledge and justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowledge or justified belief. Coherentists hold that justification is solely a function of some relationship between beliefs, none of which are privileged beliefs in the way maintained by foundationalists theories of justification.
  (Epistemological is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge^[1][2] and is also referred to as "theory of knowledge". It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which any given subject or entity can be known. Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification.
  The term "epistemology" was introduced by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier (1808–1864).⁾

• Deflationary or pragmatist theories of truth; the former is the epistemological claim that assertions that predicate truth of a statement do not attribute a property called truth to such a statement while the later is the epistemological claim that assertions that predicate truth of a statement attribute the property of useful-to-believe to such a statement.

• Empiricism; the broad epistemological assertion that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience; contrary to rationalism.

• Fallibilism; the epistemological principle that human beings could be wrong about their beliefs, expectations, or their understanding of the world, and yet still be justified in holding their incorrect beliefs.

• Instrumentalism; the view in the philosophy of science that a scientific concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality.

• Pluralism; a view in metaphysics and epistemology that there is more than one sound way to conceptualize the world and its content.

• Verificationism; the view that a statement or question is only legitimate if there is some way to determine whether the statement is true or false, or what the answer to the question is.

Charles Sanders Peirce (and his pragmatic maxim) deserves much of the credit for pragmatism,^[1] along with later twentieth century contributors, William James and John Dewey.^[2] Pragmatism enjoyed renewed attention after W. V. O. Quine and Wilfrid Sellars used a revised pragmatism to criticize logical positivism in the 1960s. Inspired by the work of Quine and Sellars, a brand of pragmatism known sometimes as neopragmatism gained influence through Richard Rorty, the most influential of the late twentieth century pragmatists along with Hilary Putnam and Robert Brandom. Contemporary pragmatism may be broadly divided into a strict analytic tradition and a "neo-classical" pragmatism (such as Susan Haack) that adheres to the work of Peirce, James, and Dewey.

PROEM: An introductory discourse; introduction; preface (1350–1400; earlier proheme, Middle English)

Propendency: Propensity, attentive deliberation. (eg: it appears the Tribe have replaced the propendency for 3-point shooting with an aptitude for dunks)

Propensity: An innate inclination; a tendency. A natural inclination or tendency: a propensity to drink too much.

Predilection:  A partiality or disposition in favour of something; a preference

Proclivity: Natural or habitual inclination or tendency; propensity; predisposition: a proclivity to meticulousness.

Pejorative   (also term of abuse or derogatory term) is a word or grammatical form of expression that expresses contempt, criticism, disregard, and disrespect. A term can be regarded as pejorative in some social or cultural groups but not in others, e.g., hacker is a term used for computer criminals as well as quick and clever computer experts. Sometimes, a term may begin as a pejorative and eventually be adopted in a non-pejorative sense in some or all contexts, e.g., "punk" or "dude". In historical linguistics, this phenomenon is known as melioration, or amelioration, reclaiming, or semantic change.
Name slurs can also involve an insulting or disparaging innuendo, rather than being a direct derogatory remark. In some cases, a person's name can be redefined with an unpleasant or insulting meaning, or applied to a group of people considered by the majority to be inferior or lower in social class, as a group label with a disparaging meaning. Also, an ethnic slur or racial slur can be used as a pejorative to imply people of those groups are inferior or deficient.

While the movie critic made pejorative comments about the film’s plot, he praised the lead actor.

Polemic /pəˈlɛmɪk/ is a contentious argument that is intended to establish the truth of a specific understanding and the falsity of the contrary position. Polemics are mostly seen in arguments about very controversial topics.
The art or practice of such argumentation is called polemics.
A person who often writes polemics, or who speaks polemically, is a polemicist or a polemic. The word is derived from the Greek πολεμικός (polemikos), meaning "warlike, hostile" which comes from πόλεμος (polemos), "war".
Polemic theology is the branch of theological argumentation devoted to the history or conduct of controversy over religious matters.
It is distinguished from apologetics, the intellectual defense of faith.
Martin Luther's On the Bondage of the Will is an example of polemic theology. It was written in answer to a polemic titled The Freedom of the Will by Desiderius Erasmus.

Panegyric is a formal public speech, or (in later use) written verse, delivered in high praise of a person or thing, a generally highly studied and discriminating eulogy, not expected to be critical.
A person who writes panegyrics is called a panegyrist. Another term is eulogist. The word is derived from the Greek πανηγυρικός meaning "a speech fit for a general assembly" (panegyris).

 

---

R is for Redonkulous

RINO (Republican in Name Only) is an officeholder or candidate who is a member of the Republican Party, but holds views to the political left of most Republican voters. The term "RINO" describes politicians who claim to be Republican but are in fact liberal, and therefore generally debase the winning conservative coalition base of the Republican Party.
RINOs are often Republican only to the extent it serves their own interests, and will abandon conservative principles as soon as it is in their own interests to do so. RINOs often provide support for raising taxes, abortion as a right, gay rights and gun control. Some RINOs have connections with Planned Parenthood or corporations that support goals of population control; other RINOs pay lip service to pro-life values while in practice not advancing those values.

REPUDIATE

tr.v. re·pu·di·at·ed, re·pu·di·at·ing, re·pu·di·ates

1. To reject the validity or authority of: "Chaucer . . . not only came to doubt the worth of his extraordinary body of work, but repudiated it" (Joyce Carol Oates).

2. To reject emphatically as unfounded, untrue, or unjust: repudiated the accusation.

3. To refuse to recognize or pay: repudiate a debt.

4.

a. To disown (a child, for example).

b. To refuse to have any dealings with.

redonkulous

re.donk'u.lous adj. 

1. significantly more absurd than ridiculous to an almost impossible extreme; without possibility of serious consideration. 

2. fitted to excite absolute ridicule; intentionally crazy and silly; completely absurd and laughable. 

"redonkulous" - as first popularized by the fictional character Seth Cohen on FOX's The O.C.

George W. Bush is the most redonkulous person in the world. 

The first Bush administration was ridiculous. This second one is just redonkulous.

S is for Semantics

Semantics (from Ancient Greek: σημαντικός sēmantikós) is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, like words, phrases, signs, and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotation.
Linguistic semantics is the study of meaning that is used for understanding human expression through language. Other forms of semantics include the semantics of programming languages, formal logics, and semiotics.
The word semantics itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language for denoting a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation. This problem of understanding has been the subject of many formal enquiries, over a long period of time, most notably in the field of formal semantics. In linguistics, it is the study of interpretation of signs or symbols used in agents or communities within particular circumstances and contexts Within this view, sounds, facial expressions, body language, and proxemics have semantic (meaningful) content, and each comprises several branches of study. In written language, things like paragraph structure and punctuation bear semantic content; other forms of language bear other semantic content.
The formal study of semantics intersects with many other fields of inquiry, including lexicology, syntax, pragmatics, etymology and others, although semantics is a well-defined field in its own right, often with synthetic properties. In philosophy of language, semantics and reference are closely connected. Further related fields include philology, communication, and semiotics. The formal study of semantics is therefore complex.

SCOURGE:  A group of mosquitos is called a scourge   A swarm of mosquitoes is also used. The mosquitoes are a family of small, midge-like flies: the Culicidae.

SOPHISTRY: Subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation. An argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive   

Sequitur: The conclusion of an inference
(Non- Sequiter: 1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.)

Sedition: Incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government, insurrection, mutiny
any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion. Archaic. rebellious disorder.

 

T is for trifurcation

Trifurcate:  Having three forks or branches   (also The act of bifurcating; branching or dividing in two.)

Toponymy is the study of place names (toponyms), their origins, meanings, use and typology. Toponymy is itself a branch of onomastics, the study of names of all kinds. A toponymist is one who studies toponymy.  The word "toponymy" is derived from the Greek words tópos (τόπος) ("place") and ónoma (ὄνομα) ("name"). Toponym is the general term for any place or geographical entity. Related, more specific types of toponym include hydronym for a body of water and oronym for a mountain or hill.