Sorry to step in the middle of one of you-alls time-honored Pointless Epic Pissing Rallys (PEP-rally), but 'Argument by Dictionary Definition' is the epitome of bad argument. If the truth of a proposition was semply dependent on the denotation of the component words... then all truths and answers would be intuitively accessible just by knowing language.
Yeah, yeah, I know. The argument is about what the word 'Lie' means. but if you take 3 seconds to think it over you'll understand that all the denotative and connotative assignations to the word 'lie' are just socially context-dependent notions about the underlying thing itself.
If you want to understand what it is to 'lie', is you can't just bloviate definitions and pound dictionaries- you have to explore the phenomenon itself. Its not that either of you are wrong or right, its that both of you are not even right or wrong. IE, you both are engaging in a form of pseudoscience.
A lie is a statement in some media that is not consistent with truth. Where you differ is the role of intent, and if the person 'should know better', and even worse for you two: the moral and ethical implications of intent and possibility of knowingly stating the incorrect.
Given that you all are focusing on moral questions and intent, good frikin' luck getting anywhere, 'specially with the neolithic tools you are using.
My advice is to look at the classes of phenomenon that are consistent with what we mean when we say 'lie', and get clear on what separations can be made. IE, we all intuitively understand 'bullshit' and 'white lie' and etc all as subcategories of dishonesty. Then you all can froth on at the mouth about the moral implications of the categories, likely pointlessly, for as long as you want- but then at least youll be out of the quagmire of pointless sophistry.
By all means, though, get on with the tantrums.
DL
Flame » in reply to "Semantic"?
'Argument by dictonary definition' isn't an argument
The whole thread (109 posts)
- Symptoms of Pathological Skepticism.
- re: Symptoms of Pathological Behaviour (n/t)
- Just for the record:
- No...
- In Defense of Pathological Skepticism.
- That's not "pathological" skepticism
- Hoagland, the one thing you can't say about him is that he doesn't Believe.
- "Semantic"?
- 'Argument by dictonary definition' isn't an argument
- "And there, bunkie, I got ya: My definition of "lie" can be found in a dictionary. Where in the universe did you get yours?"..... Does the Mirriam-Webster dictionary count? You will, of course apolog…
- Yes, Damn it....
- "Semantic"?
- On the other hand...
- Hoagland, the one thing you can't say about him is that he doesn't Believe.
- re: Perhaps you are not a PATHOLOGICAL skeptic.
- Easter has been cancelled this year. They found the body.
- re: Perhaps I was wrong.
- No, I don't concede that.
- re: "Do you concede that UFO's don't necessarily violate any known physical laws?"
- re: Perhaps I was wrong.
- Easter has been cancelled this year. They found the body.
- That's not "pathological" skepticism
- The burden of proof is, as it has always been, on the most extraordinary claims. (n/t)