Which is most evil: Circumcision, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Americans, filosofers

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Asher
I "maneuvered" away from the discussion because the person I sniped at conceded. You are now the only person thinking word definitions are unrelated to dictionaries.

Asher debating 101 - the person you argue with goes to watch TV and in his absence you declare he has conceded the debate and agrees with you.

Brilliant.

Especially since by saying that I have conceded, you must agree with my statement. I know it was phrased rather wittily and perhaps went over your comp sci head, but if you agree with my statement it seems you are the one who has conceded.

You said:

The dictionary comment was directed at Ozzy who believes dictionaries have no purpose, as words mean whatever we define them to mean.

I just pointed out that we write dictionaries to say whatever "we" want them to say. Dictionaries are an expression of our relative and shifting opinions on words and don't represent some objective reality.

So yes, words mean whatever we want them to mean, and every so often we'll write that down into a dictionary, and then rewrite it again a few years later. Appealing to the higher wisdom of dictionaries is pretty meaningless.

Thank you Asher for conceding to me.

[Asher]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Asher debating 101 - the person you argue with goes to watch TV and in his absence you declare he has conceded the debate and agrees with you.

Brilliant.

Especially since by saying that I have conceded, you must agree with my statement. I know it was phrased rather wittily and perhaps went over your comp sci head, but if you agree with my statement it seems you are the one who has conceded.

The problem is I gave you too much credit. I'd thought by saying "we" write the dictionaries you were alluding to the general consensus of the public, not the fact that you think dictionaries randomly define words for fun "every so often".



That's why I thought you conceded, not because you were AFK for a bit.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor
There is nothing objective to say that other stages of human development can't attain personhood. Ozzy actually believes a fetus is a person. BK actually believes an embryo is a person. They don't use the word just to score cheap points (one can't possibly score points at 'Poly). They use the word because it represents their actual perception, their actual definition.

Their perception is not reality and does not reflect the opinion of the majority of people. Thus, their use of the word is irresponsible and causes confusion.

[Kuciwalker]

Seems to me gays shouldn't be arguing for absolute majority rule.

[OzzyKP]

My point is the general consensus changes. The general consensus has at one point or another defined "person" to mean individuals over 9 years old, non-slaves, whites, corporations, men, Christians, born humans, and many other uses. Non-whites weren't suddenly considered people because a dictionary decided it. The general consensus changed (as it often does), and as with other changes there will be people on both sides of the issue.

Right now, as that map shows, the world is pretty divided on the personhood of fetuses. I am convinced that one day the side advocating that a fetus is a person will win out since progress over the last 2,000 years has generally moved towards expanding rights instead of contracting them. But I accept that reasonable people disagree on this. And reasonable people (aka not comp sci people perhaps) express their disagreement through a variety of moral and logical arguments, not by reading off definitions in dictionaries.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Seems to me gays shouldn't be arguing for absolute majority rule.

That's a brilliant parallel -- standardization of language for means of communication is the same as saying all human beings need to have the same sexuality. If a person argues about the concept of standardization, it is fair game to make a comparison to their sexuality, right?

That's quite brilliant, Kuci. Bring that up at your next Boy Scouts meeting.

[Asher]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
My point is the general consensus changes.

You are very much correct, sir. There is has been a sharp increase in the amount of people not considering the fetus < 24 months a person.

Right now, as that map shows, the world is pretty divided on the personhood of fetuses. I am convinced that one day the side advocating that a fetus is a person will win out since progress over the last 2,000 years has generally moved towards expanding rights instead of contracting them.

Expanding the rights for women to choose.

[Asher]

I'll break it down one last time for those who still don't get it, before I wander off to get some sleep:

I did not disagree with the concept of abortion based on what a dictionary says, I disagreed with the use of the word "person" to describe something that is not yet a person. This should have been obvious using some common sense, and even more obvious if you'd noticed in this very thread I only personally find abortions acceptable in the 1st trimester (which is clearly not a distinction made in a dictionary). My comment was one that was aimed at the language of his wording, and at the sametime was a swipe at belitting the importance of the debate.

I hope Kuci et. al have clued in now.

[GePap]

Don't you all hate it when couples have a fight?



I would go get the popcorn, but work awaits.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher

Of course their definition exists, it's just not the correct one.

You cannot have any reasonable discussion unless you standardize your language, which is the purpose of a dictionary. It's really one of the fundamental pillars of communication.

This is why philosophy and similar liberal arts are at such a disadvantage. In the sciences, we have a standardized definition of everything. In philosophy and liberal arts, they're not bright enough to be capable to standardize what they're talking about -- in fact, most philosophers make a career out of arguing about definitions and semantics rather than doing something productive.

This ties into my original post -- the problem is the word "person", as it is defined today and as it is accepted by the majority of the population, does not mean the same as fetus. In reality, we've got a word for the fetus -- it's called the fetus.

Spiffor -- I'm merely arguing that people use the correct words rather than using incorrect words to give a bias to the conversation. A fetus is a fetus, not a person. The fact that pro-Life people call it a person is merely to reinforce their position. It's a not-so-subtle mind-game that I dislike. If you want to argue that fetus' should not be aborted, be my guest, but it's certainly not a person.

Redefining words is a pet peve of mine.

I hate it when people redefine words too, however this hapens and we have to accept it. The dictionary is made up of all kinds of words that have been redefined.

Going back to when words are used with a definition that is different from the dictionary, even if people who commonly use the dictionary definition hear or read about the conversation they must define the word used in its context. That is they must define the word differently than it is defined in the dictionary. This is just something that is necessary.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher
I did not disagree with the concept of abortion based on what a dictionary says, I disagreed with the use of the word "person" to describe something that is not yet a person.

The two are equivalent when you take the dictionary definition of person as gospel. Incidentally, when they use person as "someone I think ought to have rights," they are correct:

person
noun
...
11. Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person or juristic person) recognized by law as having rights and duties.

[Asher]

Care to explain what laws "recognize the rights and duties" of legally aborted babies? That's an interesting argument.

Arguing that they "should" have rights does not make that word appropriate, as it clearly says "recognized by law".

[Kuciwalker]

People decide the law. When the definition is contingent on the law it is appropriate for them to argue for the definition to be changed.

[Asher]

Are the rights to the legally aborted fetuses recognized by law? Yes or no.

[Elok]

Are you being disingenuous, or what? I don't think he's arguing that fetuses are recognized as persons by law, only that there is precedent for applying the label to practically anything worthy of concern, from a legal standpoint.