Semantics

[Jeremiah]

Is it just me or does it seem that some people rely too heavily on arguing semantics to justify their position.

Seems to me that there is a lot of side stepping on topics by taking what is a common English word and creating a huge fuss over what this basic word means. Most of us should have gone to school and understand basic syntax and the definition of commonly used words.

When people do this, it almost makes me feel that some are trying to avoid the debate rather than engage it head on. It makes me question one's faith in professed beliefs.

What do you think?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What do you mean by semantics?

 

[Jeremiah]

What do you mean by semantics?

Hmmm.... That is a good question. I call for a 20 page debate over it!!!!

 

[Sunstone]

When people do this, it almost makes me feel that some are trying to avoid the debate rather than engage it head on. It makes me question one's faith in professed beliefs.

What do you think?

I don't think most people are trying to avoid the debate, but are rather simply confused by semantics. The human brain seems to me to be rather easily confused by things -- especially semantics.

 

[Jeremiah]

I don't think most people are trying to avoid the debate, but are rather simply confused by semantics. The human brain seems to me to be rather easily confused by things -- especially semantics.

Or perhaps people are just over thinking things.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Or perhaps people are just over thinking things.

Too much thinking is hardly an indictment most people would be found guilty of.

 

[idav]

What do you think?

If your saying that some try to hide behind the general ambiguity of words then maybe. Now are we talking present day semantics or 1700's type of semantics?

 

[Curious George]

I think that people have a tendency to see things from their perspective. They often use words while assuming that others will interpret their words with the exact definitions which the user intended. I think that if you trace back the definitions you will eventually find the difference in position. Thus, we can narrow a twenty page discussion to ten, or we can have a relevant discussion instead of hollering back and forth from our own perspective wondering why the other is too "stupid" to see things correctly (how we see things).

 

[Sunstone]

Or perhaps people are just over thinking things.

If people were not easily confused by semantics, then, say, calling Julian Assange a "traitor" would not so easily sway people in their beliefs about him and his actions. If anything, that should be evidence that people are at least sometimes under-thinking things, rather than over-thinking them.

 

[Willamena]

Is it just me or does it seem that some people rely too heavily on arguing semantics to justify their position.

Seems to me that there is a lot of side stepping on topics by taking what is a common English word and creating a huge fuss over what this basic word means. Most of us should have gone to school and understand basic syntax and the definition of commonly used words.

When people do this, it almost makes me feel that some are trying to avoid the debate rather than engage it head on. It makes me question one's faith in professed beliefs.

What do you think?

Semantics are vital, though not always necessary. In some cases, it can be a case of composing your argument to be against the concepts that support the OP, rather than the subject of the OP. If those concepts fail, the argument can fail.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Is it just me or does it seem that some people rely too heavily on arguing semantics to justify their position.

Seems to me that there is a lot of side stepping on topics by taking what is a common English word and creating a huge fuss over what this basic word means. Most of us should have gone to school and understand basic syntax and the definition of commonly used words.

When people do this, it almost makes me feel that some are trying to avoid the debate rather than engage it head on. It makes me question one's faith in professed beliefs.

What do you think?

I think that the ones running from debate are those who refuse to explain the meaning of their terms when asked. Usually they don't know themselves what they mean by their own words and can get a little upset when questioned about it.

That's been my experience anyway.

 

[Willamena]

I think that the ones running from debate are those who refuse to explain the meaning of their terms when asked. Usually they don't know themselves what they mean by their own words and can get a little upset when questioned about it.

That's been my experience anyway.

I invariably suspect the opposite: they know what they mean, but are concerned that no one else does.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I invariably suspect the opposite: they know what they mean, but are concerned that no one else does.

I'm sure you're right in many cases, but I think I've been often-abused by those who use terms which they themselves don't understand. They can react badly when asked to paraphrase and expand.

I figure that they have suddenly realized the earthlessness beneath their feet, making them go a bit hysterical in my general direction.

 

[Jeremiah]

I invariably suspect the opposite: they know what they mean, but are concerned that no one else does.

Or maybe they just say what they mean and the are looking for a debate rather than haggling over words.

 

[Jeremiah]

I think that the ones running from debate are those who refuse to explain the meaning of their terms when asked. Usually they don't know themselves what they mean by their own words and can get a little upset when questioned about it.

That's been my experience anyway.

I just figure if you can't keep up with basic English (unless this is a second language) than you probably are not worth debating.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Almost all debates I have come into become a matter of semantics. Highly frustrating especially if people take certain words VERY literally. I myself use an excessive amount of sarcasm and it just makes me troll feed often.
People who do really on semantics are more prone not to have a rational debate though on the other hand which is quite obvious.

 

[Willamena]

I just figure if you can't keep up with basic English (unless this is a second language) than you probably are not worth debating.

But this attitude doesn't work either, because it's saying that only your understanding of the words in English is the valid one.

 

[Copernicus]

Semantic arguments are common because natural language is highly ambiguous and vague outside of specific contexts. Quite often, the ambiguity is not apparent even to the person constructing the argument. However, there are substantive disagreements that have very little to do with language.

 

[Jeremiah]

But this attitude doesn't work either, because it's saying that only your understanding of the words in English is the valid one.

You can't pick up a dictionary? There is nothing special about my word usage, I try to use common syntax and definition.

In fact I spend a lot of time on my posts, checking my word usage against the common dictionary definition. Making sure that it is not only the right word for the job but that I have the proper syntax as well.

 

[Jeremiah]

I feel that too many are just trying to reinvent the wheel instead of learning and using the established language that already exist.