I mean, if we’re supposed to debate the meanings of words we can look up in a dictionary, how could we do anything, let alone build a country? That’s the kind of sophistry some corporate lawyer would do.
A lot of things we don’t do because we can do them, but because we can’t not do them.
Given time and population, you’ll build some kind of country, whether you want it or not.
As for “meaning of words we can look up in a dictionary”… My dear, you haven’t worked with language long enough to see what I’ve seen. And let me tell you, dictionaries have more contradictions than any text you can dig up. And that’s completely normal. Because this is also what we can’t not do, because there’s a giant hole at the bottom of all definitions, because the world is an incomprehensible mess, and always will be.
Shit, we can even barely answer basic questions like “what the fuck the colour orange is?”
@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.
I mean, if we’re supposed to debate the meanings of words we can look up in a dictionary, how could we do anything, let alone build a country? That’s the kind of sophistry some corporate lawyer would do.
@pinkdrunkenelephants Y’see…
A lot of things we don’t do because we can do them, but because we can’t not do them.
Given time and population, you’ll build some kind of country, whether you want it or not.
As for “meaning of words we can look up in a dictionary”… My dear, you haven’t worked with language long enough to see what I’ve seen. And let me tell you, dictionaries have more contradictions than any text you can dig up. And that’s completely normal. Because this is also what we can’t not do, because there’s a giant hole at the bottom of all definitions, because the world is an incomprehensible mess, and always will be.
Shit, we can even barely answer basic questions like “what the fuck the colour orange is?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX0xWJpr0FY
What we can do, is define words from context to context and hope to navigate those contradictions.
What matters in the end is, if we’re at all better of for the way we navigate, or worse. It’s the only thing that matters, really.
Oh, really?
How are we having this conversation then?
@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.
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 Also, you’ve only proven my point that “the definition game” has no concievable end. So…