“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” ― Voltaire

[Sunstone]

The years I've been on this forum have gradually convinced me that most arguments between people are based -- are deeply rooted in -- mere misunderstandings. Micheal criticizes Stephanie's post for something Stephanie never said or meant in the first place.

That seems to me the norm, rather than the exception. I think the incidence for such posts is most likely at least 50% and could be as high as seven or even eight times out of every ten times some post is criticized. But I don't really know -- I'm just guessing.

Furthermore, it seems to me that one of the most likely causes of all this misunderstanding is the habit most of us seem to be in of assuming other people are defining their terms the same way we would define them, rather than analyzing just how other people are using their terms.

“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” ― Voltaire

Makes it kind of amusing to see how venomous some criticisms are, given their irrelevance.

By the way, I'm "just sayin'", just making an observation. I'm not trying to condemn folks for doing what I take to be simply human nature.

 

[David T]

The years I've been on this forum have gradually convinced me that most arguments between people are based -- are deeply rooted in -- mere misunderstandings. Micheal criticizes Stephanie's post for something Stephanie never said or meant in the first place.

That seems to me the norm, rather than the exception. I think the incidence for such posts is most likely at least 50% and could be as high as seven or even eight times out of every ten times some post is criticized. But I don't really know -- I'm just guessing.

Furthermore, it seems to me that one of the most likely causes of all this misunderstanding is the habit most of us seem to be in of assuming other people are defining their terms the same way we would define them, rather than analyzing just how other people are using their terms.

“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” ― Voltaire

Makes it kind of amusing to see how venomous some criticisms are, given their irrelevance.

By the way, I'm "just sayin'", just making an observation. I'm not trying to condemn folks for doing what I take to be simply human nature.

Voltaic

The years I've been on this forum have gradually convinced me that most arguments between people are based -- are deeply rooted in -- mere misunderstandings. Micheal criticizes Stephanie's post for something Stephanie never said or meant in the first place.

That seems to me the norm, rather than the exception. I think the incidence for such posts is most likely at least 50% and could be as high as seven or even eight times out of every ten times some post is criticized. But I don't really know -- I'm just guessing.

Furthermore, it seems to me that one of the most likely causes of all this misunderstanding is the habit most of us seem to be in of assuming other people are defining their terms the same way we would define them, rather than analyzing just how other people are using their terms.

“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” ― Voltaire

Makes it kind of amusing to see how venomous some criticisms are, given their irrelevance.

By the way, I'm "just sayin'", just making an observation. I'm not trying to condemn folks for doing what I take to be simply human nature.

Well voltaire makes sense if you are aspergers! Clearly he has zero sense of realty. But that's aspergers.

Like other key Enlightenment thinkers, Voltaire was a deist, expressing the idea: "What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being.

Clearly there is a divine professor on high. Or is that a statement by aspergers that is high? To funny sorry but voltaire is a very civilized idiot and a Persian cat pretending to be a lion.. Lol.

Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

“There must be some way out of here,” said the joker to the thief
“There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth”

“No reason to get excited,” the thief, he kindly spoke
“There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late”

All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too

Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Voltaire is a princess.

 

[BSM1]

The years I've been on this forum have gradually convinced me that most arguments between people are based -- are deeply rooted in -- mere misunderstandings. Micheal criticizes Stephanie's post for something Stephanie never said or meant in the first place.

That seems to me the norm, rather than the exception. I think the incidence for such posts is most likely at least 50% and could be as high as seven or even eight times out of every ten times some post is criticized. But I don't really know -- I'm just guessing.

Furthermore, it seems to me that one of the most likely causes of all this misunderstanding is the habit most of us seem to be in of assuming other people are defining their terms the same way we would define them, rather than analyzing just how other people are using their terms.

“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” ― Voltaire

Makes it kind of amusing to see how venomous some criticisms are, given their irrelevance.

By the way, I'm "just sayin'", just making an observation. I'm not trying to condemn folks for doing what I take to be simply human nature.

You're welcome...

 

[Revoltingest]

Voltaic

Well voltaire makes sense if you are aspergers! Clearly he has zero sense of realty. But that's aspergers.

Like other key Enlightenment thinkers, Voltaire was a deist, expressing the idea: "What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being.

Clearly there is a divine professor on high. Or is that a statement by aspergers that is high? To funny sorry but voltaire is a very civilized idiot and a Persian cat pretending to be a lion.. Lol. View attachment 20196


Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

“There must be some way out of here,” said the joker to the thief
“There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth”

“No reason to get excited,” the thief, he kindly spoke
“There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late”

All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too

Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

Voltaire is a princess.

Candide might be evidence that Voltaire isn't a
neurotypical....the observations of an outsider, eh.

 

[icehorse]

Furthermore, it seems to me that one of the most likely causes of all this misunderstanding is the habit most of us seem to be in of assuming other people are defining their terms the same way we would define them, rather than analyzing just how other people are using their terms.

Based on one of my tag lines, I'd say Confucius agrees with you.

This very morning, on this very forum I asked the RF collective if they could provide a term for a phenomenon that we were discussing so that we could pin down a definition and discuss it more deeply.

Hooray for clarifying terms!

 

[Vinayaka]

To add to the point, its frustrating when the other person in the discussion insists that you are talking about the same thing ... even when you're not. So many examples, especially between vastly differing paradigms.

 

[Augustus]

Based on one of my tag lines, I'd say Confucius agrees with you.

Or it could be the opposite "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name. - Confucius"

Often people believe theirs is the 'proper' version and prefer to discuss how someone else is 'misusing' a word rather than looking at the bigger issue and how someone else is using the term.

Also, you didn't even define "Confucius"...

 

[Revoltingest]

To add to the point, its frustrating when the other person in the discussion insists that you are talking about the same thing ... even when you're not. So many examples, especially between vastly differing paradigms.

Some people need to attack the straw man.
Without it, they might have to face an argument they cannot win.
Worse yet....they might have to admit agreement with a despised bozo.

 

[osgart]

It's amazing how the definitions of terms changes over time; what one takes in, and leaves out of a word. Or than someone conceives of something different than what's been said in the past, and they can't quite find the words to express it.
Then there is a lot of false implications that get attached to what someone is saying often times because the words themselves grow, or shrink in meaning.

I think not only define your terms, but define your context would be appropriate.

 

[Augustus]

To add to the point, its frustrating when the other person in the discussion insists that you are talking about the same thing ... even when you're not. So many examples, especially between vastly differing paradigms.

Or when someone pretends that a term/definition they dislike is literally incomprehensible and conveys zero actual meaning, even after someone has clearly explained how they are using the term and sometimes even when this reflects common usage.

 

[YmirGF]

Or when someone pretends that a term/definition they dislike is literally incomprehensible and conveys zero actual meaning, even after someone has clearly explained how they are using the term and sometimes even when this reflects common usage.

I know that I've run into this MANY times over the last couple of months as I have waded into Intersectionality Theory and related topics. One of the biggest obstacles for me was that the articles were not using words in their ordinary sense and had imbued them with new meanings. And yes, that made it quite confusing. Once you know what the "code words" mean, then it all begins to make a weird kind of sense or at least you can understand what they are saying.

 

[PureX]

Language is an imperfect means of communication.

 

[Stevicus]

That seems to me the norm, rather than the exception. I think the incidence for such posts is most likely at least 50% and could be as high as seven or even eight times out of every ten times some post is criticized. But I don't really know -- I'm just guessing.

I notice that it's more often the case where people define their beliefs by what they're against rather than what they're for. It's far easier to criticize others for their beliefs rather than state one's own beliefs and open oneself up to criticism.

 

[David T]

Candide might be evidence that Voltaire isn't a
neurotypical....the observations of an outsider, eh.

Candide might be evidence that Voltaire isn't a
neurotypical....the observations of an outsider, eh.

He seems depressed what little I know. I am more of a sancho panza to Don quixote. I generally never get depressed. I contemated suicide for a minute literally my very darkest hour. Decided to buy a motorcycle. If you are gonna die at least have fun. In fact the dude that owned this bike before me died on it!!! Lol hahaha aha.

 

[Vinayaka]

despised bozo.

Just whom do you have in mind?

 

[taykair]

If making a subject clearer is the goal, then definition of terms is fine (and, I would think, necessary). Sometimes, though, folks spend so much time arguing definitions that they lose track of the original point - and sometimes this is done deliberately.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just whom do you have in mind?

That smelly groundskeeper.

 

[PureX]

If making a subject clearer is the goal, then definition of terms is fine (and, I would think, necessary). Sometimes, though, folks spend so much time arguing definitions that they lose track of the original point - and sometimes this is done deliberately.

It is often the case that we don't want to make anything clearer. We want to wallow in confusion and bias.

Ignorance is often, willful. Which is why it is so persistent.