if two people are disagree about what
the words they use actually mean,
what is the use of going any further until that gets settled?

why do you think ppl that "argue semantics" are trying
to dodge the question or cop pleas?

help me understand why you dismiss a point
because it's about semantics.

navel gazing if you give it too much importance in a discussion, but I do think that people who can't deal with the basic definitions of words that are likely to pop up in a debate are morons. Since we do so much communication via the written word on a day to day basis clarification is important.

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

Instead of discussing what we were originally discussing, now we're arguing about what words were used, or "you said this tho!" etc.

---
http://twitter.com/logicalhood
http://instagram.com/hoodlogic

we really need to not move forward until what you said
and what I think you said are the same.

same goes for me. what i said and what i think i said don't always match.

but they need to, if we gonna argue.

you absolutely have to go back and clear that up.

because otherwise, what are we talking about?
do we even know?

>Instead of discussing what we were originally discussing, now
>we're arguing about what words were used, or "you said this
>tho!" etc.

That's the problem that I have with people that argue semantics. There is NO NEED to go back in time and try to recreate what was said when I can simply clarify. People that truly misunderstood will usually move on. The people that are intent on derailing the conversation WILL NOT move on. They will keep talking about the past misunderstanding or misuse of words, and we'll never get back to the original topic.

Unfortunately, it seems to be about 10/90, with the derailers making up that 90%.

---
http://twitter.com/logicalhood
http://instagram.com/hoodlogic

i see your point now. ppl that won't move forward after we both agree
on what you said are arguing in bad faith.

after we are on the same page, we can move on.

what we did just now is what I meant by arguing semamtics.
and now, it's clear that we don't disagree about this.



>That's the problem that I have with people that argue
>semantics. There is NO NEED to go back in time and try to
>recreate what was said when I can simply clarify. People that
>truly misunderstood will usually move on. The people that are
>intent on derailing the conversation WILL NOT move on. They
>will keep talking about the past misunderstanding or misuse of
>words, and we'll never get back to the original topic.
>
>Unfortunately, it seems to be about 10/90, with the derailers
>making up that 90%.

i see your point now. ppl that won't move forward after we both agree
on what you said are arguing in bad faith.

after we are on the same page, we can move on.

what we did just now is what I meant by arguing semamtics.
and now, it's clear that we don't disagree about this.



>That's the problem that I have with people that argue
>semantics. There is NO NEED to go back in time and try to
>recreate what was said when I can simply clarify. People that
>truly misunderstood will usually move on. The people that are
>intent on derailing the conversation WILL NOT move on. They
>will keep talking about the past misunderstanding or misuse of
>words, and we'll never get back to the original topic.
>
>Unfortunately, it seems to be about 10/90, with the derailers
>making up that 90%.

>why do you think ppl that "argue semantics" are trying
>to dodge the question or cop pleas?

it's a commonly used device to deflect from the original issue. and often the person who is doing it, understands the "spirit" of the argument and is intentionally deflecting in order to frustrate the opponent.

however, there are times where definitions are very important in argument. but its usually obvious in those instances.

on th flip side, people who say "you're just arguing semantics" also use it to deflect from the fact that they're getting flambéed in the argument.

________
http://twitter.com/aehorton
http://instagram.com/aehorton

>it's a commonly used device to deflect from the original
>issue. and often the person who is doing it, understands the
>"spirit" of the argument and is intentionally deflecting in
>order to frustrate the opponent.
>


it doesn't even have to be compliated.
"what did you mean by that?"

i need to figure that out before i go in on you.
we have to have conversation about semantics.
if the person is arguing in good faith, they'll be happy
to clear it up.


>however, there are times where definitions are very important
>in argument. but its usually obvious in those instances.
>



>on th flip side, people who say "you're just arguing
>semantics" also use it to deflect from the fact that they're
>getting flambéed in the argument.

i don't argue to be right, i argue to present a differing opinion. i have found here on this forum especially people try to draw clear and distinct lines between right and wrong on a myriad of abstract topics and concepts, and get their panties in a bunch when you refuse to conform to their way of thinking.

there is a basic philosophical axiom that states, "you cannot prove or disprove anything, the world is taste less and color less, because perception drives experience"

the only things worth fighting for are ethical and moral codes which protect all living things, and award all living things with the right to life and happiness, and this includes animals and plants too.

everything and everyone has their own purpose, and if you flat out tell someone they are wrong, you are imposing your will upon them are essentially violating their right to experience life. i never tell people they are wrong about anything, i try to rely on the Socratic method, or my own sense of reasoning to keep turning the prism to look for other angles. i'm interested in discovery and exploring ideas, not being right.

people with small minds and inflated ego's need to be right. humble people interested in discovery don't care about that nonsense.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

humility is a source of strength, trying to be right about something leaves you with the burden of proof, and you have to use your ego to defend your stance, and in this way, you lock yourself in your castle and shoot at anyone dares to oppose you, which ultimately, creates nothing but conflict.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

not really.

i argue so i can learn how to have more thoughts than i currently do.
i don't give a damn about being right.

not really.

right is a myth.


>humility is a source of strength, trying to be right about
>something leaves you with the burden of proof, and you have to
>use your ego to defend your stance, and in this way, you lock
>yourself in your castle and shoot at anyone dares to oppose
>you, which ultimately, creates nothing but conflict.

"Therefor, my conclusion is that the issue isn't my poor understanding of the topics I attempt to discuss as though I am thoroughly versed in them. Those people who consistently, easily, effortlessly prove me wrong on a consistent basis just have small minds and egos because they aren't willing to buy my philosophical bullshit in the face of facts that discredit my stance."





Yeah, sounds about right.

Thanks for proving my point junior.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

I’ve never seen someone actually take pride in not knowing what the fuck they’re talking about on so many subjects with such consistency.

It’s truly a sight to behold.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

why bother? dude is clearly a stress case. I fear I'll give him a heart attack. It's better to let him write his essays and ignore them. I don't even read half the drivel he writes and I can't figure out why he follows me around the forum. I sincerely believe he has mental issues and I don't want to antagonize them. I have seen the way he posts, telling people to "kill themselves", etc. Nah. I don't get down with that and I don't want to engage it either.

Finally, sure, view it as a loss, and who are you? and what does loss mean to me?

Absolutely nothing. You're a name on a screen, and if you think this is some kind of W / L scenario than you need to get a life son cause the shit sounds sad to me.

Go outside and get some air bruh.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

Probably not.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

If you're innocent, be cool.
Only the guilty's catchin' offence.

politicians never define words like "middle class," "socialism,"
"democracy," "terrorism," "radical," "liberal," "thug," "family values,"
or "civil rights."

they just say shit and move on,
as if they didn't mention something important.

why do they do that?

..clarity should be easily determined in a respectable dialogue.

debating the meaning of words used during a debate should never superceded intent. point out the infraction or misunderstanding and move on.

get past the semantics and straight to the source of the matter.


*skatin' the rings of saturn*


..and miles to go before i sleep...

gay's shouldn't adopt kids, because kids are best parented
by adults with "family values."

if i chose to argue about that,
we aren't going any further until you define "family values."

that's vauge.

make it plain.

hell yeah, i'm making it about semantics.
spell out exactly what you mean.

what are family values, and why can't gay parents have them?

if i decide to argue about that,
we need get clarity on what that means.

and if you won't provide that clarity,
i will continue to argue semantics until it becomes
obvious what you meant.

put it out there.
make it clear.


>debating the meaning of words used during a debate should
>never superceded intent. point out the infraction or
>misunderstanding and move on.
>
>get past the semantics and straight to the source of the
>matter.
>
>
>*skatin' the rings of saturn*
>
>
>..and miles to go before i sleep...

..like your example of family values, there's no evidence that suggests alternative lifestyles can't/don't provide solid foundation for parenting.

that's a convo born of fear & ignorance.



*skatin' the rings of saturn*


..and miles to go before i sleep...

travon was a thug.

what is a thug?


(the real answer is nigger, as we know. but
some folks like to toss out thug and keep it moving.

as if they didn't say some slick shit.)

maybe that stuff needs to be made plain.
if not for the person you are talking to,
at least for ppl listening that might not have noticed
that slick shit.

spell it out.

say what you feel, if we gonna talk about it.

>..like your example of family values, there's no evidence
>that suggests alternative lifestyles can't/don't provide solid
>foundation for parenting.
>
>that's a convo born of fear & ignorance.
>
>
>
>*skatin' the rings of saturn*
>
>
>..and miles to go before i sleep...

clarification is necessary. But arguing about definitions is not productive.

In your example, someone who was arguing semantics would shift the bulk of the discussion to the definition of family values while never getting back to the main point.

A person with a motive simply to clarify would want the definition of family values just to be on the same page. Not to make it a point of argument in itself

_______________________________________

if that's your point, you need to say it.
if that's not your point, tell me what you mean.

and if you can't, maybe you really do think fags shouldn't raise children.

so say that.


don't be vague.
make it plain.


anothee example is the "deficit crisis" republicans talk about.

what is a deficit?
why is it bad?
why does the deficit create a crisis?

spell it out.

now we can talk about why it's more important to address that
than to fund the shit you are about to cut.


we can't move forward until you say what you mean.


>clarification is necessary. But arguing about definitions is
>not productive.
>
>In your example, someone who was arguing semantics would shift
>the bulk of the discussion to the definition of family values
>while never getting back to the main point.
>
>A person with a motive simply to clarify would want the
>definition of family values just to be on the same page. Not
>to make it a point of argument in itself

You need to use tact if you are going to express such a polarizing opinion, and you certainly shouldn't use slurs or offensive name calling.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

*skatin' the rings of saturn*


..and miles to go before i sleep...

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

just means there is no agreement on the meanings of terms. until you have that the debate will be circular.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

If it's a devolution into arguing about wording at the expense of the subject, then yes, that's a negative.

If the parties argue semantics in order to arrive at clarification so the discussion can continue with proper understanding, then that's a positive.

...and then it escalates into something that really shouldn't be an argument.

they use intentionally vauge language to
avoid talking about the point they actually wanted to make.

some ppl don't think about the words they use.
but the national dialoge on every subject is dictated by folks
that use their words very carefully,

to decide if, when and how folks talk about what is being discussed.



don't tell me we have a deficit crisis and then keep going.
what is the deficit?
why is having one a problem?

spell it out.

make it plain.


>...and then it escalates into something that really shouldn't
>be an argument.

i think it's silly because i have work to do and life to live and what the people on this board think or believe doesn't really affect my quality of life.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.