Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (19949)	7/31/2001 2:33:53 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

I don't know why we argue so much about words. Several reasons. Not in any particular order. 1. That's what we think in. 2. He who defines the words wins the argument. Thus, definition is critical. 3. It's easier to argue about definitions than ideas. 4. Until we agree on definitions, we will never agree on principles. This is the critical problem in most arguments. Most people would agree that they want peace in the Middle East. But what is the definition of peace in the Middle East? Most people would agree that they oppose the indiscriminate murder of people. But what is a person? What is murder? And on and on. 5. Maybe it's better to argue about definitions in the hope of reaching some agreement there. At least then we aren't just talking past each other. If you and I have two different definitions of decent, we can argue about decency forever and never reach agreement because we're probably both right, based on our own definitions of decency. Similarly, in the abortion debate most responsible people would agree that IF the fetus is really a full fledged person with full civil and human rights, it's wrong to kill it indiscriminately, and IF the fetus is really no more independently human that fingernails or hair, it's a person's right to clip it off or out without any interference. We don't disagree on the principles, we disagree on the definitions. That's all. So arguing about definitions sometimes IS the key point to a discussion. Not always, of course; the global warming debate isn't about defining warming; we can measure that with thermometers. It isn't about the definition of future global temperatures -- we can agree that in 2050 we will know what the global temperature is. It's about other things, like will it or won't it happen, would it be good or bad (the oceans were once much higher than they are now, and life suvived; so would we, but just differently. New York City and Los Angeles would be gone, but whether that's good or bad is a matter of debate), and if we are agreed that it's happening, it would be bad, and we should do what we can to stop it, then what is the right way to go about stopping it, what is fair, and what is politically possible. But very often, the definitions ARE the argument. That's why arguing about words can be essential.