Meanings
Tom
debater is clearly losing -- is to claim that you're just arguing
"semantics," as if that somehow settles something.
Of course, semantics is simply the study of meaning, so to claim that
someone is arguing semantics while arguing about the meanings of words
is like one mathematician telling another, when losing an argument
about an equation, "you're just arguing mathematics!" The appropriate
response is "yes, I am. That's in fact the entire point of this
discussion."
Meanings are *important*. There's a misconception that words are
somehow irrelevant or useless. Don't be fooled -- without words with
clear definitions, you wouldn't be reading this. Words aren't
everything, but they are the primary fodder for discussion and debate.
To argue that words are unimportant is like trying to argue that
gasoline doesn't exist while traveling in a moving [gasoline-powered]
automobile. You're undercutting the very thing that allows you to
make your point.
A long time ago, it was decided that for definitions of words to be
relevant, they had to have something called *fixity*. Fixity is just
a fancy word meaning, in this case, that the definitions of words has
to be more or less fixed. We cannot simply redefine a word to mean
whatever we want, or it loses all meaning.
This is one reason why the debate over whether or not addiction truly
is a disease is so important. This one signifier -- disease --
implies a whole HOST of other concepts. It implies a freedom from
control (and hence responsibility) of the outcome. It implies that it
is at least theoretically possible to treat or cure the condition. It
implies pathology -- a "sick" organism, in one sense or another. And
it hints at an organic basis; although there ARE mental "illnesses,"
in general, a "disease" is considered to have clearly organic roots.
Simply changing the definition of disease so that it doesn't require
or even have a treatment or cure, and has absolutely no detectable
organic basis, and so that the sufferer is somehow still responsible
for the very symptoms of his "disease," alters the meaning of
"disease" to the point where it loses its fixity and becomes
meaningless. We might as well call eating nachos a "disease."
If a debater then claims that I'm just arguing semantics, he's
essentially conceded the argument. *Of course* I'm just arguing
semantics -- that's the entire topic of the discussion. If I've
proven my point "semantically" that addiction is not a disease, then
I've effectively "won the debate," since that was the point of
contention from the beginning. If addiction is NOT a disease, then we
should hold people fully accountable for their actions, quit looking
for a biological basis, and quit looking for a "treatment" as much as
teaching people how to behave differently.
Meanings and semantics are *important*. Don't let them fool ya' into
believing otherwise.
If you doubt me, just read George Orwell's 1984 and look at Newspeak.
Virtualoso
<ourob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A common tactic when arguing the meanings of words -- usually when one
> debater is clearly losing -- is to . . .
You're really one of those self-assigned Masterdebators, aren't you? LOL
Just look at that long drawn out post justifying and rationalizing
yourself... which is completely off topic.
moraldeficient
This is off topic but Virt. Are you really a pedophile?
I read some crap on here about you diddling children. That is pretty
fucked up.
We have a guy who comes to meetings who is like 15 years clean. I just
found out that he couldn't see his kids because he diddled his
daughter when she was like 5. He always really bothered me before I
found this out and now I really can't stand him.
Man, some people have problems that don't relate to drugs or alcohol
in the least. They should find another outlet for their fucked up head
rather then NA meetings.
I am torn because while the guy is an addict I cringe every time he
shares about how hard it is to deal with his feelings and all I can
think is "Yeah, I bet you're fucked up. You diddled you daughter you
sicko."
Can't live with ‘em can't shoot ‘em in the face. Ohh well.
So Virt, are you really a pedophile?
MD