Kksd74628

@Carl-Richard So you don't see any problem teaching your daughter that piece of paper is metal?

@Carl-Richard So you don't think that calling person who is neo-nazi as a nazi is wrong?

@Carl-Richard So all that I am left right now is person who doesn't know the difference between words neo-nazi and nazi, because he thinks that different words can point towards same thing if some person who speaks loosely and wrongly in the streets says so. It's called informal talking for a reason, because it isn't formal. If you can't see how calling neo-nazi as a nazi isn't the most truthful thing then I can't continue this conversation. That is the step 1 which needs to be accepted, because if you're honest you'd agree with that claim.

@Carl-Richard We are circling around the subject, but even if majority people answer in the streets that 1+1 equals 3 it doesn't change the fact that it is 2.

@Carl-Richard You could call him neo-nazi, but calling him nazi would be a mistake. And yeah asking yes/no question would be okay if you let the other one respond, but usually people won't and that's why i'd careful in those situations.

@Carl-Richard Good principle is that whenever one needs to ask yes/no question something is already wrong in the conversation. It's forcing someone to give opinion without giving possibility to defend or explain it. Destiny was right on his take that definitions by themself aren't the most important thing and are just tools to play with. The most important thing is to see other one's worldview and talk about it instead. Destiny said many times that the person they were talking about isn't nazi by dictionary definition. I think that's enough and we don't need any other definitions to this conversation.

@Carl-Richard Okay, then I agree with everything that everyone said here, because yeah making definitions more specific and nuanced is good thing. What I was agruing against was ideologizing words with your worldviews and actually that was the topic of the original Destiny versus MrGirl video as well so I thought we were talking about this instead, but yeah. This is also good thing to understand. Of course if we are talking about just making definitions more specific then everyone who understands what we are talking about should agree with the definitions. So I was right in my statement that if someone disagrees with your definition that you tried to make as specific as possible then (s)he's wrong.

@Scholar Boom, the first who understood the point.

@Razard86 Right now with our development that we have you have to play with the rules so I was right. Good night.

@zurew I know you tried to be funny, but if someone's own definitions reduces capability to read simple english then I'd say someone has gone too far.

@Carl-Richard You misunderstood what I was talking about. I just said that we shouldn't have own definition which differ too much from the normal usage of a word. Being able to explain word on the fly is useful skill though, but that's not the same as having definition full of ideology. How's it so hard to understand my point that I have tried to show in like 10 or more messages? Go through most of them and try to understand what I was showing. @zurew Because the definitions are perspectives and usually people with same worldviews come up with same type of perspectives.

@Danioover9000 You just proved another thing in your response. You said that people learn definitions from people around them. So basically if we'd be more connected to other human beings which should be one goal of politics we'd share more definitions with other people. So the reason why some groups have different definitions to other groups is that they have their ideology in it. I think we should leave words neutral and build our opinions and worldviews around those and not the another way around. Definition is perspective is a way of seeing things and if you push your definition to people that means you push your agenda. This goes like a chess. We should agree on how pieces move, but after that you're free to do whatever you want with your correct moves.

@zurew This conversation is starting to be comical. Yeah I didn't mean that it is a rule that when you share definitions you automatically agree, but I'd say that person who calls far lefties as communists isn't voting lefties in the first place. An isolated case doesn't make the whole statement wrong. I don't know what type of definition differences you're talking about if those aren't political definition differences. What I've seen is that people ideologize definitions so they play to their favour in debate and that's the things I don't like.

@zurew One fun "coincidence" is that the people who agree with you most of the times usually share the definitions and people who disagree with you disagree on definitions. I think that alone should show that it's not about defining word way that works in your brain the best, but a way that works with your own ideology. You can define things any way, but the second you start including your own ideology in it, it starts to collapse. For example calling all far lefties as communists would be making them look laughable under that definition alone. @Danioover9000 That proves my point that it was always about your own agenda not the way your brain works. The thing I tried to prove whole time proved itself . Amen ??.

@zurew I understand that dictionary changes, but as I said I argue that the speed how fast dictionary changes compared to how people change their way of speaking is slower and therefore better thing to pinpoint towards. That's the problem I'm speaking about the whole time and that causes lot of mess in conversations. Dictionary should be aligned with an average usage of a word in longer timeframe and because it's refresh rate is slower than how people change the meanings of words in day to day life I'd continue arguing that it's more stable to pinpoint towards dictionary definition than mainstream usage in specific day. @Carl-Richard I have to say that I'm not that great in that field, but anyways. Communist is a person who supports communism which is an ideology where all resources are shared and we don't need goverment and money anymore. The problem comes if we start to name all far lefties with a name communist, because that would be incorrect usage of a word. @Carl-Richard @zurew I don't understand why you both deny the importance of stable definition for words that stays longer than couple debates, because the fact is that people change their definitions all the time if they see it's more beneficial for them. That's the reason I'd want people to be more grounded the way the talk or we're going to hit point that most of the time goes to defining words that should be obvious like the word communist. Conversation should be worldview against another one not definition against another one.

@zurew@Carl-Richard The correct usage of a word is that how it's usually used and that needs to be aligned with the definition in a dictionary. Definition of a thing is always perspective and I understand that there are many perspectives to things and that's good. The problem I try to point is that the perspectives you give needs to stay in certain area or the thing you're describing vanishes, because it loses its ground. My view is that we should have strong ground to all words and therefore we need to pinpoint it to something. I'd argue that dictionary is right now the best thing we got, because it pretty much stays the same and is stable.

@zurew We shouldn't ignore experiences and it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to waste your life front of dictionary book neither, but the point is that you have to be able to correct your sense of what the word might be when I show you what it actually is. So what I was talking about the whole time is that I think following sentence that I see lot in debates doesn't make any sense - "maybe we just disagree on the definition". How could you disagree on the definition, because by the definition the definition is what it is. What I am arguing for is definition is not an opinion, but a fact to some extent.

@zurew I understand that lot of different things can affect on one's ideas of particular words, but I also acknowledge that we should aim to build our vocabularity in our society in a way that most of people share the most definitions in their head. When I think about term the "own definition" that we used in this discussion I get in my mind picture that I can start saying bottle of wine and mean front door, because everyone can use their own definitions. It doesn't matter what you think about word table, because we can check the definition from wikipedia or something similar and see what should we use. I thought my point was pretty straighforward.

@zurew @Carl-Richard For example word nazi, like destiny showed, used to mean different thing that what we try to make it mean nowadays. I agree that in conversation we are going to face lot of nuances and that's the point of discussion from some perspective, but I don't think redefining words in middle of conversation has any positive use. If someone thinks some definition should be changed then have another discussion about that until people as a whole accept that. Until then we should stay with previous socially accepted definition. Good example of why what I say is important is "what is woman or man" discussion. This whole problem wouldn't even exist if we agree that woman either means biological truth or then it means what you think about by yourself. People actually agree on this whole thing. Lefties usually say man can give birth and righties says that it can't and they actually agree, but the problem is that they have different definition of a word. That's why I'd just simplify whole thing and stay with original definition as the woman and man used to be and build nuances top of that making different words or something. Problem in that example is that people misunderstand the difference between terms gender identity and gender itself. Usually people change definitions when they are about to lose argument and the goalpost is moved so you can't ever pinpoint why they failed an argument. I don't have any problem checking that people have correct idea of a word, but having some twisted idea of a word could make the conversation biased and one sided before anyone had chance to say anything even. That's why we should stay with common definitions of words.

@Carl-Richard Wait a second, what you misunderstood. I thought own definion is something that you only by yourself agree and is different from original definition of that word. I think we shouldn't have own definitions, but just straight agree and play with the definitions that are given. For example we don't make own ideas of number 4, because otherwise we couldn't do math together and same goes to words in conversations. Saying that we disagree on definition is laughable, because it means that either one of the debaters or both don't know the real definition.

@Carl-Richard I am not sure if I got what you meant, but I agree that showing the definition of a word in conversation if it's needed is just a good thing.

@zurew Having own definitions itself is laughable. The very fact that our communication right now works is because we share definitions of these words that you read. If you mean different thing that I do then use different word and if this word doesn't exist in our vocabulary then we have to add that to the vocabulary. This thing I am talking about is problem in spiritual groups as well, because they fight about the definitions instead of the thing that happened. Point is to convey information, not to have opinion about definition that should be a fact in the first place.

@Inliytened1 Isn't selfishness equal to caring one part more than another. If that definition is correct then the decision which makes everyone the most happy as a whole in our society should be correct decision. If hypothetically killing someone would make society as a whole feel better then that would also mean that it would be good decision to make. That is the first thing which needs to be accepted. After that we can continue this discussion to value if that decision improves happiness and if not it shouldn't be done and vice versa. That's the way to think these hard moral questions.

@spiritual memes Being super masculine and good person is possible and that's one of the stage green blind spots.

@Razard86 By the rules I meant laws of nature . I mean if you wanna start arguing that you don't have to play with those rules then I don't know what to say. I don't know what rules you thought I was talking about. The point was that even if you know that you're god or have other spiritual experiences the thing is that the end of the day you have to live your life in "human level" and there are some restrictions being human and there are also some relative truths that should be taked into account. Do you see what I try to show?