Easily. You are a zetetic (which you admit is a noun/adjective), therefore you are zetetic. You still haven't answered my question. Can you name any other word that is an adjective which doubles as a noun (like zetetic does) that cannot be used to describe the same noun? One word. That's all I'm asking for. If you can't provide one, you've lost your pathetic little game.
zarg, the relevant question is not whether such words exist, the question is whether or not all meanings of such words can be applied the same way as both an adjective and a noun. Take the word 'bright'. It can mean bright as in 'bright light', or bright as in 'a bright kid'. If I say "zarg is bright" meaning the latter, it makes sense. If I say "zarg is bright" meaning the former, it doesn't. That is the real issue here: zetetic in my sense cannot be applied to a person, even if zetetic used to mean 'an inquirer ' can.
In any event, I can name such a word (there are plenty) and also use it to demonstrate my point at the same time. Take the word 'level'. As a noun, it can mean a level in a videogame, i.e. a stage, section, whatever. As an adjective, it usually means flat. I don't know if you play many videogames, but many of them are not flat. The point is that when the noun has this particular meaning, the meaning of the adjective does not match up. Again, take the noun minor and the adjective minor - there are meanings that do not correspond or function together. How about sable, or light, or brief, or wee? All have noun-meanings that do not correspond to the adjective-meanings.
There may be a noun zetetic, but it does not convey the same meaning as my interpretation of the adjective zetetic. More importantly, I do not think that meaning can be applied to a person.
Am I seeing things here? Seriously? Let me read that again to make sure.
Well I guess we both know who's being lazy then. I've already taken the time to write those nine thousand posts. If you want to know what I believe, maybe you should take the time to read them.
Yep, you literally just implied that I am lazier than you for not reading 9000 posts as opposed to you refusing to answer a question directly. Good God, it's a wonder even FE'ers take you seriously. I am not asking you to rewrite 9000 posts. I am asking you a simple question.
You are asking me to write out everything I believe regarding FET, and then explain how I arrived at those beliefs zetetically. It's not a "simple question". In fact it's not a question at all, but a request or demand, depending on how rude one considers its phrasing to be. Besides, this is something I have done time and time again during my time here, as you would know if you reviewed my post history. The information is all there, and I will continue to post about my beliefs and defend them. I neither obligated nor inclined to comply with the brash and absurd demands of every RE'er I enter into a discussion with.
You know your beliefs better than anyone. Tell me some of the the main beliefs that comprise your personal interpretation of the Flat Earth Theory, and then, most importantly, tell me how they are based on zeteticism. You can start with this thread's topic, the moon shrimp.
I'm not sure I have ever said that the existence of Luna has ever been Zetetically grounded.
Strawman. And you're not even trying. All you have to do is remove the last sentence from that quote to turn your obvious strawman into a completely irrelevant statement.
It's not a strawman at all - your question implicitly assumes something which is not the case, and it is in no way fallacial to point that out. If you gave sufficient attention to my
Discourse on the Zetetic Method (which I have linked to in this thread), you might understand why.