How NOT to Argue on RF...

[Sunstone]

Cheerful Good Morning to You, Esteemed and Noble Denizens of RF!

Today I would enjoy calling your attention to the simple but astonishing fact that at least half the arguments between noble and esteemed members of RF appear to me to be wholly semantic in origin and nature -- or are at least significantly compounded by semantic disagreements. If I am correct about that, then a whole lot of the arguments on this board are -- to use a technical philosophical term -- WEE-WEE PUDDLESCRAP!

Put differently, many of us illustrious and scintillating RFers are indulging ourselves in nonsensical arguments. Arguments that create misunderstandings, encourage hatreds and animosities, and resolve nothing -- nothing at all.

Pray allow me to offer for your astute consideration, the following hypothetical example of a typical argument based on purely semantic differences...

LUDWIG THE HUN: "There is snow on the ground." (Ludwig is using the word "snow" to mean a frozen and crystallized form of water.)​

MERLE MEDDLESNOUT: "Wow! That much snow must cost a fortune!" (Merle is assuming Ludwig is using the word "snow" to mean cocaine.)​

LUDWIG: "No, you are mistaken. Snow falls from the sky and is perfectly free."​

MERLE: "That's crazy, you peach-sucking fruit peddler! In my neighborhood, I know for a fact that snow costs just under $100 per gram! By my calculations, I can scientifically prove that enough snow to cover your front lawn an inch deep would run into the millions of dollars. Concede defeat!"​

LUDWIG: "Why you failed laboratory experiment! You are defining "snow" as "cocaine" while God knows snow is properly defined as frozen and crystallized water. Please slink back to the puddle you emerged from this morning to pollute my life."​

***MOD POST***
CASTING ASPERSIONS UPON EACH OTHER'S EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESS IS A VIOLATION OF RULE 22! REMEMBER: PLAY NICE!
​

MERLE: "You are so naive, Ludwig. God defines "snow" as cocaine. It is your usage of the word that is in error, you skivvy flapping piston-licker!"​

LUDWIG: "No! No! No! God clearly intended the only proper use of "snow" to mean water. WATER! Get it?"​

There are a thousand variations on the above sort of argument, but I estimate that at least half the arguments on this board are either purely semantic disagreements -- or are at least compounded by semantic disagreements.

Discuss.




__________________________
And now for some music... "Reincarnation" by the Hang Gai band

 

[Fool]

Cheerful Good Morning to You, Esteemed and Noble Denizens of RF!

Today I would enjoy calling your attention to the simple but astonishing fact that at least half the arguments between noble and esteemed members of RF appear to me to be wholly semantic in origin and nature -- or are at least significantly compounded by semantic disagreements. If I am correct about that, then a whole lot of the arguments on this board are -- to use a technical philosophical term -- WEE-WEE PUDDLESCRAP!

Put differently, many of us illustrious and scintillating RFers are indulging ourselves in nonsensical arguments. Arguments that create misunderstandings, encourage hatreds and animosities, and resolve nothing -- nothing at all.

Pray allow me to offer for your astute consideration, the following hypothetical example of a typical argument based on purely semantic differences...

LUDWIG THE HUN: "There is snow on the ground." (Ludwig is using the word "snow" to mean a frozen and crystallized form of water.)​

MERLE MEDDLESNOUT: "Wow! That much snow must cost a fortune!" (Merle is assuming Ludwig is using the word "snow" to mean cocaine.)​

LUDWIG: "No, you are mistaken. Snow falls from the sky and is perfectly free."​

MERLE: "That's crazy, you peach-sucking fruit peddler! In my neighborhood, I know for a fact that snow costs just under $100 per gram! By my calculations, I can scientifically prove that enough snow to cover your front lawn an inch deep would run into the millions of dollars. Concede defeat!"​

LUDWIG: "Why you failed laboratory experiment! You are defining "snow" as "cocaine" while God knows snow is properly defined as frozen and crystallized water. Please slink back to the puddle you emerged from this morning to pollute my life."​

***MOD POST***
CASTING ASPERSIONS UPON EACH OTHER'S EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESS IS A VIOLATION OF RULE 22! REMEMBER: PLAY NICE!
​

MERLE: "You are so naive, Ludwig. God defines "snow" as cocaine. It is your usage of the word that is in error, you skivvy flapping piston-licker!"​

LUDWIG: "No! No! No! God clearly intended the only proper use of "snow" to mean water. WATER! Get it?"​

There are a thousand variations on the above sort of argument, but I estimate that at least half the arguments on this board are either purely semantic disagreements -- or are at least compounded by semantic disagreements.

Discuss.




__________________________
And now for some music... "Reincarnation" by the Hang Gai band

Its called the dumb parrot. unlike the logical, linguistics aren't definite.

again it all boils down to empathy or lack there of. doesn't matter if you define it to the max, ain't going to work if the person is a full blown narcissist. fyi sociopaths and psychopaths are both narcissistic.

 

[Polymath257]

This is clearly wrong because most RFers know absolutely nothing about mathematical models, so how can their disagreements be over semantics?

 

[Sunstone]

This is clearly wrong because most RFers know absolutely nothing about mathematical models, so how can their disagreements be over semantics?

If you know so dang much about mathematical models, then prove it! Tell us what kind of plastic is used to make them! Bet you can't.

 

[Polymath257]

If you know so dang much about mathematical models, then prove it! Tell us what kind of plastic is used to make them! Bet you can't.

Mental plasticity is the key to making such models. Clearly, you have a LOT to learn about semantics and plasticity!

 

[Cooky]

Cheerful Good Morning to You, Esteemed and Noble Denizens of RF!

Today I would enjoy calling your attention to the simple but astonishing fact that at least half the arguments between noble and esteemed members of RF appear to me to be wholly semantic in origin and nature -- or are at least significantly compounded by semantic disagreements. If I am correct about that, then a whole lot of the arguments on this board are -- to use a technical philosophical term -- WEE-WEE PUDDLESCRAP!

Put differently, many of us illustrious and scintillating RFers are indulging ourselves in nonsensical arguments. Arguments that create misunderstandings, encourage hatreds and animosities, and resolve nothing -- nothing at all.

Pray allow me to offer for your astute consideration, the following hypothetical example of a typical argument based on purely semantic differences...

LUDWIG THE HUN: "There is snow on the ground." (Ludwig is using the word "snow" to mean a frozen and crystallized form of water.)​

MERLE MEDDLESNOUT: "Wow! That much snow must cost a fortune!" (Merle is assuming Ludwig is using the word "snow" to mean cocaine.)​

LUDWIG: "No, you are mistaken. Snow falls from the sky and is perfectly free."​

MERLE: "That's crazy, you peach-sucking fruit peddler! In my neighborhood, I know for a fact that snow costs just under $100 per gram! By my calculations, I can scientifically prove that enough snow to cover your front lawn an inch deep would run into the millions of dollars. Concede defeat!"​

LUDWIG: "Why you failed laboratory experiment! You are defining "snow" as "cocaine" while God knows snow is properly defined as frozen and crystallized water. Please slink back to the puddle you emerged from this morning to pollute my life."​

***MOD POST***
CASTING ASPERSIONS UPON EACH OTHER'S EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESS IS A VIOLATION OF RULE 22! REMEMBER: PLAY NICE!
​

MERLE: "You are so naive, Ludwig. God defines "snow" as cocaine. It is your usage of the word that is in error, you skivvy flapping piston-licker!"​

LUDWIG: "No! No! No! God clearly intended the only proper use of "snow" to mean water. WATER! Get it?"​

There are a thousand variations on the above sort of argument, but I estimate that at least half the arguments on this board are either purely semantic disagreements -- or are at least compounded by semantic disagreements.

Discuss.




__________________________
And now for some music... "Reincarnation" by the Hang Gai band

Being able to listen to others properly is one of the most important factors in an honest debate. Without that, it's just a competition of tit-for-tat for someone's personal amusement.

...But those here to play competitive games of semantics are not taken seriously by the more conscious among us.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Will that be a five minute argument or ….

 

[Laika]

Cheerful Good Morning to You, Esteemed and Noble Denizens of RF!

Today I would enjoy calling your attention to the simple but astonishing fact that at least half the arguments between noble and esteemed members of RF appear to me to be wholly semantic in origin and nature -- or are at least significantly compounded by semantic disagreements. If I am correct about that, then a whole lot of the arguments on this board are -- to use a technical philosophical term -- WEE-WEE PUDDLESCRAP!

Put differently, many of us illustrious and scintillating RFers are indulging ourselves in nonsensical arguments. Arguments that create misunderstandings, encourage hatreds and animosities, and resolve nothing -- nothing at all.

When I first joined RF, I was shocked by how much time we spent debating the "definition" of words (e.g. God, Religion, Atheism, Capitalism, Socialism). The explanation I found (heavily relying on Marxist philosophy mind you) is that western philosophy relies so heavily in traditions of scepticism and agnosticism that it leads us to challenge the ability of words to communicate a precise and definite objective content (as a reflection of real, objective objects, relations, processes and properties). In Soviet critiques of Western "capitalist" philosophy these trends come under a very broad use of the labels of "Neo-Positivism" or "Pragmatism" and developed out of 20th century discussions on the nature of truth, knowledge and science.

It still bothers me and gets in the way of productive discussion, but I can appreciate there is a deeper significance to these discussions; mainly the belief we cannot attain a pure, absolute and objective truth and that language doesn't accurately reflect or communicate reality (either in part or at all). The fact so many RF members are a) British and American and b) agnostic-atheist means that the majority of RF users therefore share cultural and philosophical assumptions that are broadly sceptical of truth claims and consequently, hyper-critical of the definition and meaning of words.

(edit: I'm not expecting people to believe or accept this as it hinges on a collectivist idea that we unconsciously accept ideas from society rather than form them deliberately in the minds of individuals. It just gave me a reason to stop pulling my hair out... )

 

[Stevicus]

LUDWIG THE HUN: "There is snow on the ground."​

​

Another possible response: "Snow White is on the ground? What happened? Did she fall? Well, why aren't you going out there to help her?"

On a side note, has anyone really used "snow" as a euphemism for "cocaine" since the 1970s? It seemed like the usage was already passe by the time this movie was made:

 

[PureX]

It's interesting how the ego effects the meaning or words. Especially when it thinks it's being "attacked", which is pretty much all the time.

 

[Thief]

***MOD POST***
CASTING ASPERSIONS UPON EACH OTHER'S EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESS IS A VIOLATION OF RULE 22! REMEMBER: PLAY NICE!​

isn't there someone around here?....with a monkey on his back

 

[Thief]

​

Another possible response: "Snow White is on the ground? What happened? Did she fall? Well, why aren't you going out there to help her?"

On a side note, has anyone really used "snow" as a euphemism for "cocaine" since the 1970s? It seemed like the usage was already passe by the time this movie was made:

no silly.....that was Dorothy in the poppy field
and got snowed on

 

[Stevicus]

no silly.....that was Dorothy in the poppy field
and got snowed on

So, Jon Snow was up to his old tricks again?

 

[crossfire]

It's finally happened! Sunstone has finally posted a thread that makes me want to drink heavily! He has finally gotten his revenge for my posting the Nagarjuna's Mula madhyamaka karika thread!

 

[Sunstone]

Mental plasticity is the key to making such models. Clearly, you have a LOT to learn about semantics and plasticity!

Yeah? Well I have had better things to do with my time than learn how to use semaphore flags and perform plastic bagging in grocery stores. Apparently, you have not.

 

[sun rise]

Cheerful Good Morning to You, Esteemed and Noble Denizens of RF!

Translating:

I wish you an unhappy bad morning, idiotic and Darwinian loser denizens of RF.

 

[Wu Wei]

 

[Augustus]

LUDWIG THE HUN: "There is snow on the ground." (Ludwig is using the word "snow" to mean a frozen and crystallized form of water.)
MERLE MEDDLESNOUT: "Wow! That much snow must cost a fortune!" (Merle is assuming Ludwig is using the word "snow" to mean cocaine.)

Where Merle a true RF virtuoso, he would use this set up to deliver a devastating coup-de-grace:

Ludwig: No, I meant snow in the sense of the cold stuff you get in winter, you know, snow as in Christmas, Santa, North Pole, Die hard, etc.
Merle: OMG! Now you are moving the goalposts! A fallacy! A FALLACY!!!

 

[Stevicus]

Is this the time to sell some backscratchers?

I already have one. I inherited it from my grandfather.

 

[atanu]

Cheerful Good Morning to You, Esteemed and Noble Denizens of RF!

Today I would enjoy calling your attention to the simple but astonishing fact that at least half the arguments between noble and esteemed members of RF appear to me to be wholly semantic in origin and nature -- or are at least significantly compounded by semantic disagreements. If I am correct about that, then a whole lot of the arguments on this board are -- to use a technical philosophical term -- WEE-WEE PUDDLESCRAP!

Put differently, many of us illustrious and scintillating RFers are indulging ourselves in nonsensical arguments. Arguments that create misunderstandings, encourage hatreds and animosities, and resolve nothing -- nothing at all.

Pray allow me to offer for your astute consideration, the following hypothetical example of a typical argument based on purely semantic differences...

LUDWIG THE HUN: "There is snow on the ground." (Ludwig is using the word "snow" to mean a frozen and crystallized form of water.)​

MERLE MEDDLESNOUT: "Wow! That much snow must cost a fortune!" (Merle is assuming Ludwig is using the word "snow" to mean cocaine.)​

LUDWIG: "No, you are mistaken. Snow falls from the sky and is perfectly free."​

MERLE: "That's crazy, you peach-sucking fruit peddler! In my neighborhood, I know for a fact that snow costs just under $100 per gram! By my calculations, I can scientifically prove that enough snow to cover your front lawn an inch deep would run into the millions of dollars. Concede defeat!"​

LUDWIG: "Why you failed laboratory experiment! You are defining "snow" as "cocaine" while God knows snow is properly defined as frozen and crystallized water. Please slink back to the puddle you emerged from this morning to pollute my life."​

***MOD POST***
CASTING ASPERSIONS UPON EACH OTHER'S EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESS IS A VIOLATION OF RULE 22! REMEMBER: PLAY NICE!
​

MERLE: "You are so naive, Ludwig. God defines "snow" as cocaine. It is your usage of the word that is in error, you skivvy flapping piston-licker!"​

LUDWIG: "No! No! No! God clearly intended the only proper use of "snow" to mean water. WATER! Get it?"​

There are a thousand variations on the above sort of argument, but I estimate that at least half the arguments on this board are either purely semantic disagreements -- or are at least compounded by semantic disagreements.

Discuss.

This reminds me of a saying in Bhagavat Gita: “What is day to a sage is night to a common man”.