TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Define "define"
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Define "define"

These endless discussions about the meaning of words are paralyzing any constructive debate. Ask Swamper to open a goddamn "Definition board" but dont destroy this one.

if people dont know what a word is, look it up in the dictionary

What do you mean by swamper?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus What do you mean by swamper?

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/avatar.php?userid=2&dateline=1062466262

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/avatar.php?userid=2&dateline=1062466262

I disagree with this definition!

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I disagree with this definition!

I might not agree with you, but at least you got a sense of humor

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant These endless discussions about the meaning of words are paralyzing any constructive debate.

I agree I've given up have serious debates here, so my solution is I go to another forum.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow I agree I've given up have serious debates here, so my solution is I go to another forum.

Good for you, we're all very sad to see you go. Just do us a favour and stop whining about how our style of debating isn't up to your high ( ) standards.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Good for you, we're all very sad to see you go. Just do us a favour and stop whining about how our style of debating isn't up to your high ( ) standards.

I am sorry, I understand your reasons, but you shouldn't debase anyone that wants to take part in discussions here yet doesn't follow your 'correct debate' guidelines.

The truth is, this is a trance forum with people interested in discussing other topics. Sure, there will likely be people that do not follow general decorum, but as I have seen you disregarding igottaknow due to 'stupid' questions or personal attacks, being subtle or sarcastic yourself doesn't rectify those claims.

There is definitely decorum to be considered, yet this isn't formal debate. People should be allowed to express their opinion without proper 'schooling' or 'rule following'. Of course, those who choose to should have sources, but better debate comes out of more subjective viewpoints. If everyone was OBjective and proper there would likely be no debate.

If you desire a better environment perhaps another site is more acceptable, yet since this isn't a philosophical debate forum or politically oriented I believe that calling single people out for bullshit is questionable. Moderators ignore this forum, if they didn't the discussion would be more topic oriented.

Discussing a specific definition of a word won't lead us to higher thought though|

quote:

Originally posted by biznology I am sorry, I understand your reasons, but you shouldn't debase anyone that wants to take part in discussions here yet doesn't follow your 'correct debate' guidelines. The truth is, this is a trance forum with people interested in discussing other topics. Sure, there will likely be people that do not follow general decorum, but as I have seen you disregarding igottaknow due to 'stupid' questions or personal attacks, being subtle or sarcastic yourself doesn't rectify those claims. There is definitely decorum to be considered, yet this isn't formal debate. People should be allowed to express their opinion without proper 'schooling' or 'rule following'. Of course, those who choose to should have sources, but better debate comes out of more subjective viewpoints. If everyone was OBjective and proper there would likely be no debate. If you desire a better environment perhaps another site is more acceptable, yet since this isn't a philosophical debate forum or politically oriented I believe that calling single people out for bullshit is questionable. Moderators ignore this forum, if they didn't the discussion would be more topic oriented. Discussing a specific definition of a word won't lead us to higher thought though|

I don't get your point. He was the one that said he was leaving to another forum because he couldn't tolerate the way we debate, not I.

In any event, I rarely if ever "debase" people, but there is a difference between (a) debating constructively but not following "formal" rules, and (b) being an out-and-out arrogant snob and basing all your arguments on how the opposition cannot debate and "won't admit they're wrong." Sorry but your criticism here is misplaced - take a good look at his posts, try to look past the fact that you happen to agree with him on certain issues, and look at the quality and character of his arguments, and you'll see exactly what I (and not only I) have against him on this forum.

It's one thing to not follow traditional rules, but it is quite another to make up one's own rules and roll off snarky retorts to all the people who don't "follow" them.

Believe it or not this political forum is less harsh than most i've visited. Typically there starts off with a point, somehow it turns into a "USA is evil" type of thing, and then people start name calling and the thread gets locked and people banned.

In this forum however typically only the first two happen and I haven't seen an excessive amount of name calling or any locks or bans. The people here tend to keep their emotions in check which is a good thing. This forum also has a extremely large non USA base of people from what I usually see, hence the excessive amount of Bush and USA bashing threads Comes with the territory though.

well how about this, YOU'RE A POO POO HEAD

uh oh in before the lock

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Believe it or not this political forum is less harsh than most i've visited. Typically there starts off with a point, somehow it turns into a "USA is evil" type of thing, and then people start name calling and the thread gets locked and people banned.

Agreed. The only other political forum that I've seen that's better than here with regards to insults and the like is the one at infidels.org. They immediately edit out any insults, and the fundies get swamped a lot faster than they do here.

quote:

In this forum however typically only the first two happen and I haven't seen an excessive amount of name calling or any locks or bans. The people here tend to keep their emotions in check which is a good thing. This forum also has a extremely large non USA base of people from what I usually see, hence the excessive amount of Bush and USA bashing threads Comes with the territory though.

I don't know, I haven't seen a hell of a lot of US bashing threads of late. Sure - there are users like Cyrus whose favourite pastime is to bash America, but they're generally outnumbered, and seem to have been focussing on Israel of late.

For every crazy US basher, there's a rabidly pro-US guy to balance things out.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology I am sorry, I understand your reasons, but you shouldn't debase anyone that wants to take part in discussions here yet doesn't follow your 'correct debate' guidelines. ... Discussing a specific definition of a word won't lead us to higher thought though

They should rename this section 'political ranting'. The thing that bothers me most is that there are certain subjects that incur the wrath of some ideological gatekeepers who frequent these boards. Their sole purpose in life is to defend their beloved ideology to the bitter end. One of their recurring tactics is to fashion definitions of words to suit their cause. Anyways, I've already said too much, I better go before they come to hunt me down. I'm currently in peace mode and I'm going out to enjoy the day.

*holds up white flag

quote:

Originally posted by Dmatrox well how about this, YOU'RE A POO POO HEAD uh oh in before the lock

hey don't mess with me or i'll e-beat-you-up.

quote:

I don't know, I haven't seen a hell of a lot of US bashing threads of late. Sure - there are users like Cyrus whose favourite pastime is to bash America, but they're generally outnumbered, and seem to have been focussing on Israel of late.

Yeah its been a bit more split in the last bit due in part to a couple israeli assasinations. I probably come off as pro-bush when I'm not, but I just hate when people just start a thread to bash the USA and bush without good reason or logic behind it and then they decide to call Americans the usual sheep for watching american tv as their logic. Then they criticize the war but offer no real solutions to the problem. Drives me nuts.

Bickering about the definition of a word is generally not the most productive activity, I would agree.

However, when you're debating with someone who refuses to distinguish between two things which are clearly not identical you only have two choices:

1. Try to strictly define the important terms so that the distinction between those two things is clear.

or

2. Ignore them since they obviously have no interest in putting forth a valid argument.

Either one of these could be seen as "paralyzing any constructive debate." The real solution would of course be for people to stop relying on extremely broad definitions in order to equivocate distinct objects, but so long as people are able to advance their "argument" by doing so I doubt we'll see an end to that.

I've basically resigned myself to responding with the second move at this point. There are a lot of people who seem to like to go out on the web and look up a bunch of political advocacy and then think they've acquired great insight into the subject matter, but then when they get into a debate which gets more detailed and specific than the articles they've been reading they're totally lost. At this point they seem to just try to obfuscate the issue by calling into question everything from the distinction between two separate objects to basic philosophical and scientific premises such as the possibility of knowledge.

Since they generally don't know much about these fundamental issues either, you can either stop responding or try to explain ideas which have taken some of the greatest philosophical minds in history hundreds of pages to explain. I certainly don't have the time (or the desire) to do that, so the conversation usually just breaks off sooner or later depending on how quickly I lose interest in their evasive maneuvers and semantic games.

This is pretty much a problem anywhere that political discussions go on, particularly in larger groups of people. If you're actually interested in getting to the bottom of issues instead of mudslinging all you can really do is try to ignore the people who don't have anything interesting to contribute and concentrate on talking to the people who do. Problem is, those people almost always agree with me; funny thing, that.

But I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles. All you can do is try to make the best of it.

Back from lunch looks like the voice of reason has stopped by.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter There are a lot of people who seem to like to go out on the web and look up a bunch of political advocacy and then think they've acquired great insight into the subject matter, but then when they get into a debate which gets more detailed and specific than the articles they've been reading they're totally lost. At this point they seem to just try to obfuscate the issue by calling into question everything from the distinction between two separate objects to basic philosophical and scientific premises such as the possibility of knowledge. Since they generally don't know much about these fundamental issues either, you can either stop responding or try to explain ideas which have taken some of the greatest philosophical minds in history hundreds of pages to explain. I certainly don't have the time (or the desire) to do that, so the conversation usually just breaks off sooner or later depending on how quickly I lose interest in their evasive maneuvers and semantic games.

I like to call it the �prove it� tactic, which is a favorite of creationists and some people on this board (and other boards too). This is where someone demands the other person provide proof for each part of his argument even if it�s common knowledge or generally excepted fact, but this same person feels he is not obligated to prove any of his allegations. The burden of proof should be equally shared by each person to support his or her position. An example would be saying evolution is bunch of bunk, then demand the other person prove it�s true. If I use a fact or statistic that isn�t widely know I�m more than happy to provide sources, but I�m not going to waste my time researching facts, while some sits back and bombards me with �prove this and prove that�.

quote:

If you're actually interested in getting to the bottom of issues instead of mudslinging all you can really do is try to ignore the people who don't have anything interesting to contribute and concentrate on talking to the people who do. Problem is, those people almost always agree with me; funny thing, that.

What can I say great minds think alike

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Problem is, those people almost always agree with me; funny thing, that.

So true!

The only reasonable debaters I can think of who I've disagreed with lately are Epicurus and arctic, the former who seems to have completely disappeared. Damn it!

igottaknow, stop trying to look like you're criticizing these irritants from the top down; we all know you've contributed to the situation by making your own set of unsubstantiated claims and one-liners and telling other people that it's their job to disprove you. The burden of proof is NOT equally shared, it is ALWAYS on the person MAKING an assertion, that is one of the fundamental principles of logic and debate.

If someone were actually "bombarding" you then that would be one thing, but when you refuse to back up even one single thing you post, that's another story entirely. Do you not realize that you're the butt of much of the criticism in this thread?

^--- Want a hug?

Oh I almost forgot to define 'hug' so you won't be confused (defintion 1. that is)

hug:
1. To clasp or hold closely, especially in the arms, as in affection; embrace.
2. To hold steadfastly to; cherish: He still hugs his outmoded beliefs.
3. To stay close to: a sailboat hugging the shore.

Hmm, anyone else thinking that we have a new married couple of the month here?

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Hmm, anyone else thinking that we have a new married couple of the month here?

are you asking me out?

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy are you asking me out?

Nah, sorry, but I think we don't stand a chance to gain the couple of the month title considering the fierce competition here.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Nah, sorry, but I think we don't stand a chance to gain the couple of the month title considering the fierce competition here.

phew

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy phew

Maybe next month, dear

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow ^--- Want a hug? Oh I almost forgot to define 'hug' so you won't be confused (defintion 1. that is) hug: 1. To clasp or hold closely, especially in the arms, as in affection; embrace. 2. To hold steadfastly to; cherish: He still hugs his outmoded beliefs. 3. To stay close to: a sailboat hugging the shore.

You seem to be forgetting that I've never been the one to ask people their definitions - rather, I've actually presented realistic definitions to the ones who constantly equivocate or question them.

It's a rather silly tactic to accuse people who state the proper definitions of paralyzing constructive debate, when the debate was already paralyzed by the people who were equivocating and using ridiculous subjective/postmodern definitions in the first place.

According to my philosophy teacher notes:

Definition: It's the operation which consists in analysing the compreension of a term/concept. To define is to circunscribe, to delimit a concept by its compreension (reducing its extension). Defining means to choose qualities necessary and suficient to distinguish an idea.

Rules of the definition:

1st: the definition must fit the defined and only the defined.
2nd: must be clear, with no ambiguos terms
3rd: its made by the nearest genre and specific difference
4th: it must not contain the defined term
5th: it must not be made by the negative

Roughly translated, but understandable.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.