09-21-2005, 03:52 AM
Pete,Sep 20 2005, 07:01 PM Wrote:Hi,
Yeah, a lot of people think that arguing about semantics is a waste of time. However, if we cannot decide just what it is we are arguing about, then that is precisely when the argument becomes a waste of time. If one of us uses 'liberal' to mean 'rabid pro-choice advocate' and the other to mean 'rabid anti-religion advocate' and we don't inform each other of our respective definitions, then we are not having a conversation. We're merely carrying on two simultaneous monologues.
--Pete
[right][snapback]89779[/snapback][/right]
I made ths rule after noticing how arguments about particular issues seemed to fall apart into definition arguments. Oftentimes, these arguments would involve something along the lines of the effects of wars, the effects of different religious policy, where the words "liberal" "conservative" and such never showed up. They usually appeared towards the end of the argument, where people had run out of other things to argue about. When going by issue by isue, it seems less important ot talk about whatever major philosophies they are part of as muc has the effects of different viewpoints, how effective thy are, etc.
I may be dead, but I'm not old (source: see lavcat)
The gloves come off, I'm playing hardball. It's fourth and 15 and you're looking at a full-court press. (Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun)
Some people in forums do the next best thing to listening to themselves talk, writing and reading what they write (source, my brother)
The gloves come off, I'm playing hardball. It's fourth and 15 and you're looking at a full-court press. (Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun)
Some people in forums do the next best thing to listening to themselves talk, writing and reading what they write (source, my brother)