Sounds like we'll just have to disagree about its "general use", I've already made my point on that. We'll also have to disagree on whether you understood my definition. You clearly misused my words (quoted as "default position") in your prior post. But it is rather dull to go on about it.
Interesting: when I repeated the Google search on the term "default position"
This wasn't interesting the first time you posted it, and it isn't interesting this time. At any rate, I already responded to it if you ever care to pursue it. Or, you can just continue repeating it as though I never responded.
I found a discussion of the point I believe that appears similar to yours:
In the general case, the only way to prove non-existence of something is to perform an exhaustive search of the Universe — no matter how much we look, as long as we have not looked everywhere, it is always possible that the entity in question exists in the part where we have not looked. Of course, logically-impossible entities are a different matter — those can be disproven, in which case there is no need to resort to the rule outlined above. (excerpt)
I thank you for this. It does very much relate to my argument. Of course justification and valuing are different, but similar in the fact that they are acts of consciousness. It doesn't make sense to justify a non-claim, or to value an entity you have no thought for. Since we all form from unconscious unthinking entities, our ultimate default position on values (how we initially value a thing) is always that of no opinion for anything--i.e. no values at all.
As values develop over time, they will always remain a finite subset of the infinite possible values a person may have, and so it is always to be expected that there will be many things a person does not and will never value. In particular, he will never value those things he never considered.
We can't agree to disagree on the definition, as the definition in general use is important, since a common language is the basis for any discussion. The evidence - whether it is "interesting" to you or not - is obvious as to the definition of default, from the preponderence of the evidence.
The rule for a default to the negative is not a default to no values, it is a default to the denial of a given value unless the postive can be proven. In this case, you have agreed that humans are thinking and that thinking creatures have values.
The statement, "By default we are unthinking creatures who do not value or justify things.." is untrue, for it's obvious that we are thinking creatures who value or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.