2 of 4
2
Definitions
Posted: 08 March 2014 04:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

Yeah, you and me, a classic team, pulling together. Like Bogie and Bacall. Steinbrenner and Billy Martin. Laurel and Hardy.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 01:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Quoting PlaClair:

. . . .treat the word(s) that define(s) them. What is “the definition”
of:

Quoting PlaClair:

I have no idea why you think that has anything to do with this
discussion.

  It appears to me, PlaClair, that you are far better at writing your words than taking the time to understand what others write. 

Quoting PlaClair:

I make a very good living with words. I know what I’m talking
about.

  Oh gee.  The rest of us are illiterate troglodytes?  Sorry, buster, but I also made an excellent living using words, logic, and critical thinking as, probably, did or do most of us here.  Could you try to be a little less pompous in your posts?

Quoting PlaClair:

I do not seek agreement on a single definition of the word; on the
contrary, the very point of the opening post on this topic is that it’s not achievable.

Which is precisely the point I rebutted in the second paragraph of my first post in this
thread.

Occam

[ Edited: 08 March 2014 01:27 PM by Occam. ]
 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 02:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

What did you just add to the discussion, Occam? You didn’t say anything. And you didn’t rebut anything before either. You’re a moderator here, and you behave like that, really?

You want a response to your previous post, here you go. People do not have to agree on definitions to have a discussion; they just have to understand what each person in the discussion means. To your question in #4, probably the judge would get tired of the obfuscation eventually, and instruct the witness to answer the question. And if she didn’t, the jury would discredit the witness. That’s my guess, but I’ve never had it happen.

I don’t know what drives this insanity over language, and especially over particular words, but it’s palpable. What is a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, a liberal, a conservative, or a member of any of the groups in the opening post? There is widespread agreement on general definitions but if you really think these terms are specifically and unambiguously defined, then stop avoiding the issue and tell us what they mean. We’ve been at this for several days, and not one of you has taken the easiest path to proving me to be completely full of shit, if that be the case. Do it, but if you can’t, then you’re the one with the issue. Bub.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 02:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Words describe things at different abstraction levels.  It doesn’t work if one demands to know what a word that describes a high abstraction level means at a lower level.  Because we recognize that they cover a broad range of specifics can use these terms to describe those in general without specifying each or any particular specific.  It just seems as if you’re semantically confused or unaware.

Re Question 4:  Or the jury would laugh at the lawyer for not being able to deal with a recalcitrant, but verbally skilled witness. 

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 03:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
Occam. - 08 March 2014 02:32 PM

Words describe things at different abstraction levels.  It doesn’t work if one demands to know what a word that describes a high abstraction level means at a lower level.  Because we recognize that they cover a broad range of specifics can use these terms to describe those in general without specifying each or any particular specific.  It just seems as if you’re semantically confused or unaware.

So what do you think we disagree about, if anything?

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 03:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Actually, Paul, I think that might be your biggest problem. I suspect most people here have no idea what you are talking about.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 03:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

George, I wish to be open to improving my communications skills, and being more easily understood; but this statement from my opening post here expresses the main point: “I cannot think of any successful group that assigns a single unambiguous definition to itself, because in point of fact, not everyone in the group will look at it in the same way. To be sure, the group needs enough definition to be inviting, attract members and move forward toward its goals.” In other words, a group has to have enough agreement to function but an unambiguous definition for a group like this - which is what advocatus argued for before he left - is not attainable. Occam seems to be making that point, so I don’t understand what he thinks our disagreement is about. So I asked.

Do me a favor. Tell me whether you think that is clear.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 03:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

True, George, and Paul, my second sentence of my last post above seems to me to address quite precisely your original post.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 03:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

I still don’t understand, Occam, so please explain.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 03:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Ah, this post seems to be reminiscent of the witness asking for definitions post.  LOL

Hey, guys, I have to get to the YMCA to exercise.  I can’t keep this up all day.  See you when I get back. smile

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 07:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7751
Joined  2009-02-26
Occam. - 08 March 2014 02:32 PM

Words describe things at different abstraction levels.  It doesn’t work if one demands to know what a word that describes a high abstraction level means at a lower level.  Because we recognize that they cover a broad range of specifics can use these terms to describe those in general without specifying each or any particular specific.  It just seems as if you’re semantically confused or unaware.

Re Question 4:  Or the jury would laugh at the lawyer for not being able to deal with a recalcitrant, but verbally skilled witness. 

Occam

It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is…....LOL

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 07:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7751
Joined  2009-02-26

.

[ Edited: 08 March 2014 07:17 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 07:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7751
Joined  2009-02-26

.

[ Edited: 08 March 2014 07:28 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 07:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Which, W4U, may be why I avoided using that word in that post.  Right?  LOL

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2014 07:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7751
Joined  2009-02-26

.

[ Edited: 08 March 2014 07:31 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2