> Your definition is wrong.
I have responded to this elsewhere. We disagree, and continuing to argue about it is pointless.
> you claim any your reasoning doesn't fail, and yet you also admit your viewpoint is vulnerable?
I say that any viewpoint is vulnerable, so saying a viewpoint "fails" because it is vulnerable is pointless. Your viewpoint is vulnerable too.
> you have yet to articulate a an argument that does make my position vulnerable to scrutiny.
This is laughable. I have done so multiple times. You have not accepted my arguments, but that doesn't mean I haven't made any.
I think our discussion has run its course.