@pinkdrunkenelephants Somewhat common context and somewhat overlapping experience (both personal and third-party). The overlap is never 100% though. Ask three people, what something is, you’ll get four answers. No matter who they are.
I don’t know what you mean by context. Define context please. What do you mean by overlap? How do you define people? What does experience mean? What’s a “though”? Isn’t that that thing you make bread out of?
People can arbitrarily dispute the meaning of any word in bad faith. That’s what bad faith arguing general entails. To have any system, we have to assume everyone involved is working in good faith, and to help foster that we have objective, authoritative standards for what words mean, like dictionaries.
The fact that a lot of our lives is based on context and collectively shared, but not articulated understandings of such things serves the point I’m making far more than defeats it. That context is why we don’t allow people to dispute the meaning of words, especially basic words – we already know what those words mean, otherwise we couldn’t talk about anything at all, it’s how humans are hard-wired. Any genuine dispute can be solved with a dictionary no matter how flawed or imperfect they may be.
Allowing people, corporations really, to dispute basic terms is one of the means by which they destroyed our legal system from the inside, and why so many people have put so much thought into how they personally would form a new system to begin with – because we all see the rot and want out.
Now tell us what the word “though” means without a dictionary. Or “is”. Or “entity”, or “put”. Define every single word you used to my satisfaction, and I will concede my point.
Whom would me defining every word you throw at me benefit? Who will be better off?
Me? No. You? Well, it will satisfy your facetiousness, and short term, yes, maybe. But in long term, you’ve learned nothing and never wanted to. Us together? Nah, you’re clearly going to turn this into a competitive situation. Society? Nobody cares.
What do you mean by benefit? What does “better off” mean? Who gets to define it?
Well, it will satisfy your facetiousness, and short term, yes, maybe. But in long term, you’ve learned nothing and never wanted to. Us together? Nah, you’re clearly going to turn this into a competitive situation. Society? Nobody cares.
That’s the point I’m making. It’s why we don’t let people dispute terms in debates and why we turn to dictionaries and other authoritative sources if there actually is an issue – it stops people concern trolling to get around the law.
@pinkdrunkenelephants Yes, but it’s important to remember that dictionaries are not god’s gospel. It’s not some kind of revelation about Life, Universe and Everything. And it’s not even a naturally occurring phenomenon. It’s still just a book (or rather, a database) some dudes or lasses wrote some time ago using their accumulated experience. It still comes from humans. It’s still just a fragment of someone’s consciousness.
And being, as we (hopefully) know, determines the consciousness. And being is an immensely complex and ever-changing thing. So no dictionary is accurate, ever. So we have lots of them, and all context-dependent.
So it is useful to re-evaluate the definitions you think you know.
Take the same makeup, for example. If someone wants to ban it, they’d better fucking give everyone a clear idea what do they mean by that. Suppose, I’m going to a football (or soccer, depending on who you ask) game and paint my face in the colours of FC I’m a fan of. Am I a criminal now?
I didn’t say god’s gospel, I said authoritative sources, and they ought to be, because there has to be an arbitrary stopping point for such disputes that both parties have to concede to, otherwise debate in good faith is not possible.
Using definition disputes in such a manner as you propose would prevent the implementation of any law.
@pinkdrunkenelephants And, ahem, forgot to mention: looking up a dictionary is an equivalent of asking hundreds of people, because that’s who writes dictionaries.
@pinkdrunkenelephants Somewhat common context and somewhat overlapping experience (both personal and third-party). The overlap is never 100% though. Ask three people, what something is, you’ll get four answers. No matter who they are.
I don’t know what you mean by context. Define context please. What do you mean by overlap? How do you define people? What does experience mean? What’s a “though”? Isn’t that that thing you make bread out of?
People can arbitrarily dispute the meaning of any word in bad faith. That’s what bad faith arguing general entails. To have any system, we have to assume everyone involved is working in good faith, and to help foster that we have objective, authoritative standards for what words mean, like dictionaries.
The fact that a lot of our lives is based on context and collectively shared, but not articulated understandings of such things serves the point I’m making far more than defeats it. That context is why we don’t allow people to dispute the meaning of words, especially basic words – we already know what those words mean, otherwise we couldn’t talk about anything at all, it’s how humans are hard-wired. Any genuine dispute can be solved with a dictionary no matter how flawed or imperfect they may be.
Allowing people, corporations really, to dispute basic terms is one of the means by which they destroyed our legal system from the inside, and why so many people have put so much thought into how they personally would form a new system to begin with – because we all see the rot and want out.
@pinkdrunkenelephants Hmm… How to put it simply.
The entirety of connections between different entities surrounding an entity in question. I’d put it this way.
@pinkdrunkenelephants People, in this context, is a multiple of “person”, in the sense of “interlocutor”.
Now tell us what the word “though” means without a dictionary. Or “is”. Or “entity”, or “put”. Define every single word you used to my satisfaction, and I will concede my point.
@pinkdrunkenelephants Let’s do it the way I proposed in my message here: https://mastodon.ml/@drq/111177928748371050
and take the practical approach to this.
Whom would me defining every word you throw at me benefit? Who will be better off?
Me? No. You? Well, it will satisfy your facetiousness, and short term, yes, maybe. But in long term, you’ve learned nothing and never wanted to. Us together? Nah, you’re clearly going to turn this into a competitive situation. Society? Nobody cares.
So, I will have to decline.
What do you mean by benefit? What does “better off” mean? Who gets to define it?
That’s the point I’m making. It’s why we don’t let people dispute terms in debates and why we turn to dictionaries and other authoritative sources if there actually is an issue – it stops people concern trolling to get around the law.
@pinkdrunkenelephants Yes, but it’s important to remember that dictionaries are not god’s gospel. It’s not some kind of revelation about Life, Universe and Everything. And it’s not even a naturally occurring phenomenon. It’s still just a book (or rather, a database) some dudes or lasses wrote some time ago using their accumulated experience. It still comes from humans. It’s still just a fragment of someone’s consciousness.
And being, as we (hopefully) know, determines the consciousness. And being is an immensely complex and ever-changing thing. So no dictionary is accurate, ever. So we have lots of them, and all context-dependent.
So it is useful to re-evaluate the definitions you think you know.
Take the same makeup, for example. If someone wants to ban it, they’d better fucking give everyone a clear idea what do they mean by that. Suppose, I’m going to a football (or soccer, depending on who you ask) game and paint my face in the colours of FC I’m a fan of. Am I a criminal now?
I didn’t say god’s gospel, I said authoritative sources, and they ought to be, because there has to be an arbitrary stopping point for such disputes that both parties have to concede to, otherwise debate in good faith is not possible.
Using definition disputes in such a manner as you propose would prevent the implementation of any law.
@pinkdrunkenelephants
> Using definition disputes in such a manner as you propose would prevent the implementation of any law.
Eh, not really. Some law will be implemented one way or another. It won’t be perfect, but none is.
But when it comes to living in human society, I’d err on the side of “as little law as it is equitable”, for that same reason.
(also, I would rather stop calling them “law”. In the matter of fact, they’re “rules”, rather than “law”)
@pinkdrunkenelephants
> authoritative
Fine. What is the source of this authority?
@pinkdrunkenelephants Also, you’ve only proven my point that “the definition game” has no concievable end. So…
That’s why it’s bad to let people dispute terms in debates.
@pinkdrunkenelephants And, ahem, forgot to mention: looking up a dictionary is an equivalent of asking hundreds of people, because that’s who writes dictionaries.