|
if you don't even know what youre arguing about, then why are you arguing? thats the point of semantics its also fun to argue semantics when you dont actually have a point of disagreement, which is what this thread is for you can also post about pendantry itt 
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2023 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
Silver Alicorn posted:etiology is pretty cool too op what is it
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2023 04:49
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:most discussions about the meaning of words can be derailed for a good while by bringing up prescriptivism vs descriptivism and aligning yourself with the latter, and forcing everyone to define words from first principles for the current context. All disagreements are purely due to misunderstandings based on poor word definitions, and through social sense making we can temporarily find agreement. u dont think people can come to different conclusions based on the same facts?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2023 05:32
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:you’ll have to define what exactly you mean by facts here; are we talking observable phenomena, or their interpretation? well, i mean you said quote:All disagreements are purely due to misunderstandings based on poor word definitions and i dont understand why youd think that. surely we can understand each others words but have different goals and interests and still end up disagreeing. example: your employer prefers to pay you as little money as possible and you prefer to earn as much money as possible. theres gonna be a material disagreement there that doesnt seem like it has anything to do with misunderstandings or definitions, its an inherently antagonistic relationship where each side has mutually competing interests
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2023 05:41
|
|
|
distortion park posted:your understanding of a fact must include some interpretation, as the fact only becomes what it is in the context of everything else you know. i think your right but you don’t even need to go that far. you can have disagreements that don’t depend on misunderstanding or interpretation of facts, simply through conflicting interests. if you asked a slave if he should be freed he’s given a different answer than the master and it isn’t dependent on either one of them misunderstanding or misinterpreting anything, as an obvious example but i think that should hold true even for much less extreme examples
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2023 08:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2023 08:46
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:I'll refer here again to my prior point in this very post about the issue being one of encoding and decoding, and therefore of building the common ground for these to align better. The issue we're going to run into sooner or later are whether the context includes values and upbringing (it most likely does), and therefore whether part of accurate-enough encoding and decoding of words for meaning has the ability to include this construction of the self into its definition. If so, you will have a hard time drawing a clear-cut boundary between "the word choice was bad" and "the idea behind the word choice was a consequence of past experience" and bringing clarification may necessarily involve re-examining people's own stances. nope this is just word games. the point is that people have different, fundamental interests that sometimes conflict in irreconcilable ways. in those situations you can’t really “agree” because what’s good for you is not good for me
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2023 02:52
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:what right, agreement between person P and person Q on some matter X: goes from (in principle) easy to (in practice) impossible depending on how compatible or incompatible P and Q’s interests and values are and whether X is anodyne or controversial given the interests and values (whether compatible or contradictory in whole or part) of P and Q terms and conditions apply but I think this not a terrible nor overly labored elaboration of fart simpson’s point. and his statement explains a fundamental (radical? should I say?) cause of many thorny disagreements
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2023 12:33
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:bytes are an archaic concept anyway. we don't use 8-bit computers anymore so there's no particular reason to group data that way. everything should just be measured in bits. who’s we?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2023 01:23
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:I mean in good faith the argument I'd make is one of relativist point of views where each actor in a system has a different amount of information they have access to and bounded rationality that means you can't expect full alignment. In bad faith, there's the classic counter-argument that there are some behaviors that should be agreed to as unacceptable. In bad-faith pedantry, you just have to endlessly try to move the argument towards the type of behavior that benefits you the most. rationality doesnt have much to do with alignment and you cant agree on whats unacceptable if you dont agree in the first place. conflict is part of existence and it sounds like you gotta come back down to earth and open your eyes to see it
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2023 03:07
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:I mean do you frame conflict as a fundamentally permanent irremediable thing, or as a transitory state until parties can find a way to either compromise, realign visions, or repair wrongs, and then move on? i think everything is transitory in the sense that nothing is static and everything is in a process of change. but there are persistent conflicts with resolutions that can basically just be the destruction of one of both parties in the conflict yeah
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2023 03:13
|
|
|
what does "ought to be persistent" mean? im being descriptive not prescriptive
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2023 03:19
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:what r u guys on about were discussing the best way to do ur mom
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2023 03:21
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I thought I said that it ALWAYS means a million handed down by g*d?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2023 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
well-read undead posted:that only applies to words in the bible. it's open season of the rest of 'em theres a lot of words in the bible....
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2023 05:08
|
|