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.
The dictionary. That is the point of a dictionary. Its very nature is to be the authoritative source of what words mean.
You can choose to accept that, or if you choose to dispute it, we’ll assume you’re debating in bad faith, end the discussion, and this court will rule in your opponent’s favor.
🧑⚖️ This court hereby deems you in contempt and in violation of the Good Faith clause of the Constitution of The Motherfucking Galactic Republic, enjoy your 30 days in jail.
See how simple that was? How easy it is to put a stop to arbitrary concern trolling via definition disputes?
I state that every new system we humans set up have clauses just like that one to stop people doing such things, so we can have not only a functional nation, but functional communication, period.
And then we add on another 30 days, and this court officially rules in favor of your opponent. Discussion over.
It’s really that simple. The rest of us are trying to have a functional nation and doing what I just did right now is the best way to handle such disputes, because they force the offending party to stop concern trolling.
🤔 I should add an actual Good Faith clause to my own hypothetical Constitution, including rules for debates all parties must adhere to in every conversation, just so stuff like that can’t happen anymore. Allowing it to go on was one of the root causes of the collapse of the U.S. and stopping people doing that would go a long way toward ensuring it can’t happen anymore.
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?
The dictionary. That is the point of a dictionary. Its very nature is to be the authoritative source of what words mean.
You can choose to accept that, or if you choose to dispute it, we’ll assume you’re debating in bad faith, end the discussion, and this court will rule in your opponent’s favor.
@pinkdrunkenelephants No, no…
The dictionary is the source of authority for YOU.
What’s the source of authority for the dictionary? Where’s the root of all authority? Whom will you trust with this job?
🧑⚖️ This court hereby deems you in contempt and in violation of the Good Faith clause of the Constitution of The Motherfucking Galactic Republic, enjoy your 30 days in jail.
See how simple that was? How easy it is to put a stop to arbitrary concern trolling via definition disputes?
I state that every new system we humans set up have clauses just like that one to stop people doing such things, so we can have not only a functional nation, but functional communication, period.
@pinkdrunkenelephants Soo… Ultimately, it’s *you*, right? Or is there another answer?
And then we add on another 30 days, and this court officially rules in favor of your opponent. Discussion over.
It’s really that simple. The rest of us are trying to have a functional nation and doing what I just did right now is the best way to handle such disputes, because they force the offending party to stop concern trolling.
🤔 I should add an actual Good Faith clause to my own hypothetical Constitution, including rules for debates all parties must adhere to in every conversation, just so stuff like that can’t happen anymore. Allowing it to go on was one of the root causes of the collapse of the U.S. and stopping people doing that would go a long way toward ensuring it can’t happen anymore.