Minimum Wage

[DoubtingThomas]

 

You say that reasoned argument is most likely to change people's minds in a sustainable way and for the right reasons. I'd be interested if there is research on this. I would imagine there is. I'm not as married to that idea as some here seem to be. Other methods of communication can be used manipulatively, but they don't have to be. The example I just gave of using story to teach lessons is a good one. The lesson can be learned very sustainably and for very good reason through modeling from characters rather than from explicitly stating logical arguments. Role modeling is often how children learn far more than by what they are verbally told. If told false stories with false morals, they may learn those. If told stories that demonstrate true dynamics, even if not literally true, they may learn valuable lessons.

 

 

I don't see a fundamental diffirence between these three examples. Reasoning by way of rhetorical argument and telling a moral story are essentially one in the say, you have examples of virtue and not-virtue and in either case they can be literally true or not. They are simply there as a device to convey meaning. Similarly, leading by example is essentially acting out the former two or doing one's best to emulate the qualities one would present as reasonable. In either case there is a rational motive, to supply some instruction on reason and virtue, but the two examples you gave don't necessarily require one to be acting in a persuasive manner. A story might be interesting and circumstantially reasonable. A parent being watched by a child may have no idea he or she is being watched and simply impart virtue unknowingly.

[STer]

 

 

You say that reasoned argument is most likely to change people's minds in a sustainable way and for the right reasons. I'd be interested if there is research on this. I would imagine there is. I'm not as married to that idea as some here seem to be. Other methods of communication can be used manipulatively, but they don't have to be. The example I just gave of using story to teach lessons is a good one. The lesson can be learned very sustainably and for very good reason through modeling from characters rather than from explicitly stating logical arguments. Role modeling is often how children learn far more than by what they are verbally told. If told false stories with false morals, they may learn those. If told stories that demonstrate true dynamics, even if not literally true, they may learn valuable lessons.

 

 

I don't see a fundamental diffirence between these three examples. Reasoning by way of rhetorical argument and telling a moral story are essentially one in the say, you have examples of virtue and not-virtue and in either case they can be literally true or not. They are simply there as a device to convey meaning. Similarly, leading by example is essentially acting out the former two or doing one's best to emulate the qualities one would present as reasonable. In either case there is a rational motive, to supply some instruction on reason and virtue, but the two examples you gave don't necessarily require one to be acting in a persuasive manner. A story might be interesting and circumstantially reasonable. A parent being watched by a child may have no idea he or she is being watched and simply impart virtue unknowingly.

 

Reasoning by way of rhetorical argument is explicitly giving someone the premises and conclusion. Telling a moral story or role modeling involves demonstration without necessarily explicitly revealing premises and conclusions. Thus they are different and affect people in different ways. In certain situations one may be more effective than the other.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

 

 

You say that reasoned argument is most likely to change people's minds in a sustainable way and for the right reasons. I'd be interested if there is research on this. I would imagine there is. I'm not as married to that idea as some here seem to be. Other methods of communication can be used manipulatively, but they don't have to be. The example I just gave of using story to teach lessons is a good one. The lesson can be learned very sustainably and for very good reason through modeling from characters rather than from explicitly stating logical arguments. Role modeling is often how children learn far more than by what they are verbally told. If told false stories with false morals, they may learn those. If told stories that demonstrate true dynamics, even if not literally true, they may learn valuable lessons.

 

 

I don't see a fundamental diffirence between these three examples. Reasoning by way of rhetorical argument and telling a moral story are essentially one in the say, you have examples of virtue and not-virtue and in either case they can be literally true or not. They are simply there as a device to convey meaning. Similarly, leading by example is essentially acting out the former two or doing one's best to emulate the qualities one would present as reasonable. In either case there is a rational motive, to supply some instruction on reason and virtue, but the two examples you gave don't necessarily require one to be acting in a persuasive manner. A story might be interesting and circumstantially reasonable. A parent being watched by a child may have no idea he or she is being watched and simply impart virtue unknowingly.

 

Reasoning by way of rhetorical argument is explicitly giving someone the premises and conclusion. Telling a moral story or role modeling involves demonstration without necessarily explicitly revealing premises and conclusions. Thus they are different and affect people in different ways. In certain situations one may be more effective than the other.

 

I don't think I commented on the effect of stylistic diffirences. All I meant to point out was that your examples were all fundamentally intentional or unintentional use of reason.

[STer]

 

 

 

 

You say that reasoned argument is most likely to change people's minds in a sustainable way and for the right reasons. I'd be interested if there is research on this. I would imagine there is. I'm not as married to that idea as some here seem to be. Other methods of communication can be used manipulatively, but they don't have to be. The example I just gave of using story to teach lessons is a good one. The lesson can be learned very sustainably and for very good reason through modeling from characters rather than from explicitly stating logical arguments. Role modeling is often how children learn far more than by what they are verbally told. If told false stories with false morals, they may learn those. If told stories that demonstrate true dynamics, even if not literally true, they may learn valuable lessons.

 

 

I don't see a fundamental diffirence between these three examples. Reasoning by way of rhetorical argument and telling a moral story are essentially one in the say, you have examples of virtue and not-virtue and in either case they can be literally true or not. They are simply there as a device to convey meaning. Similarly, leading by example is essentially acting out the former two or doing one's best to emulate the qualities one would present as reasonable. In either case there is a rational motive, to supply some instruction on reason and virtue, but the two examples you gave don't necessarily require one to be acting in a persuasive manner. A story might be interesting and circumstantially reasonable. A parent being watched by a child may have no idea he or she is being watched and simply impart virtue unknowingly.

 

Reasoning by way of rhetorical argument is explicitly giving someone the premises and conclusion. Telling a moral story or role modeling involves demonstration without necessarily explicitly revealing premises and conclusions. Thus they are different and affect people in different ways. In certain situations one may be more effective than the other.

 

I don't think I commented on the effect of stylistic diffirences. All I meant to point out was that your examples were all fundamentally intentional or unintentional use of reason.

 

We've already covered here the difference behind reason being involved in the actor's motivation vs. reason as the explicit verbal method of communication in an attempt to persuade.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

 

 

 

 

You say that reasoned argument is most likely to change people's minds in a sustainable way and for the right reasons. I'd be interested if there is research on this. I would imagine there is. I'm not as married to that idea as some here seem to be. Other methods of communication can be used manipulatively, but they don't have to be. The example I just gave of using story to teach lessons is a good one. The lesson can be learned very sustainably and for very good reason through modeling from characters rather than from explicitly stating logical arguments. Role modeling is often how children learn far more than by what they are verbally told. If told false stories with false morals, they may learn those. If told stories that demonstrate true dynamics, even if not literally true, they may learn valuable lessons.

 

 

I don't see a fundamental diffirence between these three examples. Reasoning by way of rhetorical argument and telling a moral story are essentially one in the say, you have examples of virtue and not-virtue and in either case they can be literally true or not. They are simply there as a device to convey meaning. Similarly, leading by example is essentially acting out the former two or doing one's best to emulate the qualities one would present as reasonable. In either case there is a rational motive, to supply some instruction on reason and virtue, but the two examples you gave don't necessarily require one to be acting in a persuasive manner. A story might be interesting and circumstantially reasonable. A parent being watched by a child may have no idea he or she is being watched and simply impart virtue unknowingly.

 

Reasoning by way of rhetorical argument is explicitly giving someone the premises and conclusion. Telling a moral story or role modeling involves demonstration without necessarily explicitly revealing premises and conclusions. Thus they are different and affect people in different ways. In certain situations one may be more effective than the other.

 

I don't think I commented on the effect of stylistic diffirences. All I meant to point out was that your examples were all fundamentally intentional or unintentional use of reason.

 

We've already covered here the difference behind reason being involved in the actor's motivation vs. reason as the explicit verbal method of communication in an attempt to persuade.

 

Or reason, as in, logic and reason. Not necessarily persuasive.

[STer]

 

 

 

 

 

 

You say that reasoned argument is most likely to change people's minds in a sustainable way and for the right reasons. I'd be interested if there is research on this. I would imagine there is. I'm not as married to that idea as some here seem to be. Other methods of communication can be used manipulatively, but they don't have to be. The example I just gave of using story to teach lessons is a good one. The lesson can be learned very sustainably and for very good reason through modeling from characters rather than from explicitly stating logical arguments. Role modeling is often how children learn far more than by what they are verbally told. If told false stories with false morals, they may learn those. If told stories that demonstrate true dynamics, even if not literally true, they may learn valuable lessons.

 

 

I don't see a fundamental diffirence between these three examples. Reasoning by way of rhetorical argument and telling a moral story are essentially one in the say, you have examples of virtue and not-virtue and in either case they can be literally true or not. They are simply there as a device to convey meaning. Similarly, leading by example is essentially acting out the former two or doing one's best to emulate the qualities one would present as reasonable. In either case there is a rational motive, to supply some instruction on reason and virtue, but the two examples you gave don't necessarily require one to be acting in a persuasive manner. A story might be interesting and circumstantially reasonable. A parent being watched by a child may have no idea he or she is being watched and simply impart virtue unknowingly.

 

Reasoning by way of rhetorical argument is explicitly giving someone the premises and conclusion. Telling a moral story or role modeling involves demonstration without necessarily explicitly revealing premises and conclusions. Thus they are different and affect people in different ways. In certain situations one may be more effective than the other.

 

I don't think I commented on the effect of stylistic diffirences. All I meant to point out was that your examples were all fundamentally intentional or unintentional use of reason.

 

We've already covered here the difference behind reason being involved in the actor's motivation vs. reason as the explicit verbal method of communication in an attempt to persuade.

 

Or reason, as in, logic and reason. Not necessarily persuasive.

 

This thread was about the original poster's frustration that people are not persuaded by logic and facts to what he sees as truth. So the entire thread has been a discussion of methods of persuasion.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

This thread was about the original poster's frustration that people are not persuaded by logic and facts to what he sees as truth. So the entire thread has been a discussion of methods of persuasion.

 

You claimed it was paradoxically illogical to keep using logic to persuade. I put forward the proposition that, excepting for style, all attempts to persuade (intentional or not) were logic and reason based. In other words, I believe I was supporting your proposition.

[STer]

 

 

This thread was about the original poster's frustration that people are not persuaded by logic and facts to what he sees as truth. So the entire thread has been a discussion of methods of persuasion.

 

You claimed it was paradoxically illogical to keep using logic to persuade. I put forward the proposition that, excepting for style, all attempts to persuade (intentional or not) were logic and reason based. In other words, I believe I was supporting your proposition.

 

I meant if people do not respond to explicit verbal appeals to logic, then it might be illogical to keep trying to use it at a certain point. I am not commenting on whether something is "logic and reason based." I'm talking about the explicit verbal appeal to another person's logic as a tactic, in contrast to other approaches, regardless if they involve reason in some other way.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

 

 

This thread was about the original poster's frustration that people are not persuaded by logic and facts to what he sees as truth. So the entire thread has been a discussion of methods of persuasion.

 

You claimed it was paradoxically illogical to keep using logic to persuade. I put forward the proposition that, excepting for style, all attempts to persuade (intentional or not) were logic and reason based. In other words, I believe I was supporting your proposition.

 

I'm talking about the explicit verbal appeal to another person's logic as a tactic, in contrast to other approaches, regardless if they involve reason in some other way.

 

And all of those approaches (if they impart virtue) are anchored in logic and reason. Hence the contradiciton.

[empyblessing]

This thread is why people hate philosophy.

[STer]

 

 

 

 

This thread was about the original poster's frustration that people are not persuaded by logic and facts to what he sees as truth. So the entire thread has been a discussion of methods of persuasion.

 

You claimed it was paradoxically illogical to keep using logic to persuade. I put forward the proposition that, excepting for style, all attempts to persuade (intentional or not) were logic and reason based. In other words, I believe I was supporting your proposition.

 

I'm talking about the explicit verbal appeal to another person's logic as a tactic, in contrast to other approaches, regardless if they involve reason in some other way.

 

And all of those approaches (if they impart virtue) are anchored in logic and reason. Hence the contradiciton.

 

I'm only saying it one more time. I'm not pointing out what they're "anchored in." I'm focused on the strategy involved which differs. If you want to focus on what they are anchored in feel free. That's a different topic.

[STer]

 

This thread is why people hate philosophy.

 

Exactly my point. All of this tedious nitpicking of every detail, no matter how logical, turns many people off. They don't enjoy that kind of argumentative approach. For better or worse, they respond more to a commercial with some athlete making jokes than to reasoned argument.

So the question is, given that, how should those hoping to make change in the world approach doing so?

What I'm gathering is that the few people responding in this thread prefer to continue using explicit reasoned verbal argument regardless of whether most people appreciate or respond to it as intended.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

This thread is why people hate philosophy.

 

Exactly my point. All of this tedious nitpicking of every detail, no matter how logical, turns many people off. They don't enjoy that kind of argumentative approach. For better or worse, they respond more to a commercial with some athlete making jokes than to reasoned argument.

So the question is, given that, how should those hoping to make change in the world approach doing so?

What I'm gathering is that the few people responding in this thread prefer to continue using explicit reasoned verbal argument regardless of whether most people appreciate or respond to it as intended.

 

Right. A good tool is hypotheticals. Sometimes the hypotheticals can be annoying to people, and they say, "well, that isn't a real scenario, or that wouldn't happen." but, hypotheticalse are used to break down previously accepted beliefs by illustrating a situational scenario that brings the core of the original belief into question. I like hypotheticals the best. They are logical, yet they give you the freedom to be creative and compelling. 

[Arius]

This thread is why people hate philosophy.

Could you elaborate?  I'd be very interest to read your thoughts on the matter.

[SaintElsewhere]

"What I'm gathering is that the few people responding in this thread prefer to continue using explicit reasoned verbal argument regardless of whether most people appreciate or respond to it as intended."

 

It's not the quantity of the people reached. It's the quality.

[empyblessing]

 

This thread is why people hate philosophy.

Could you elaborate?  I'd be very interest to read your thoughts on the matter.

 

The topic was supposed to be about the minimum wage. Instead it digressed into a conversation about the meaning of words and the efficacy of raising the minmum wage lost. 

If there's confusion over a word than define it. No one owns the language. It's a tool used to communicate. Define exactly how you use the word in that sentence.

 

 

[empyblessing]

Minimum wage sucks for a few reasons.

1. It's statist garbage which means it will be enforced with a gun and someone will die because of it. 

2. It denies a person the ability to price their labor competitively if the value of the labor is less than the minimum wage.

3. Along with the Obamacare and an increased minimum wage, starting a business and keeping employees becomes that much harder. Not to mention all of the businesses which will fire or not hire anyone new.

At the rate in which jobs are sparse and college degress plentiful fast food chains will start requiring degrees just to flip burgers.

 

 

 

[Arius]

 

1. It's statist garbage which means it will be enforced with a gun and someone will die because of it. 

2. It denies a person the ability to price their labor competitively if the value of the labor is less than the minimum wage.

3. Along with the Obamacare and an increased minimum wage, starting a
business and keeping employees becomes that much harder. Not to mention
all of the businesses which will fire or not hire anyone new.

 

So, here's a point for you to ponder.  You'll recall, there are no labor police.  If all the people who work somewhere forgo hiring contracts, and simply don't inform the IRS, then labor laws are meaningless.  The laws are unenforceable, save that people prefer to use force against each other.  The state does not spontaneously interfere with people's lives.  Rather, people invoke the state as a vehicle to solve social problems.  It is the poor interpersonal relationships between employers and employees, and those peoples' lack of ability to resolve problems peacefully, which summons the state.  If there were no state, the same employees who lodge labor complaints would assault their managers, and those managers, who strive to get as much labor as possible for as little money as possible, would carry bullwhips.  The state is just a symmetrical tool of force (like a gun everyone can hold and fire simultaneously) in labor relations, it exacerbates an underlying condition.  The problem is the people.  They are bad at dealing with each other and resort to force too quickly.  Think about it, if everyone resolved social problems without violence, who would need laws?

 

[Rick Horton]

 

Minimum wage sucks for a few reasons.

1. It's statist garbage which means it will be enforced with a gun and someone will die because of it. 

2. It denies a person the ability to price their labor competitively if the value of the labor is less than the minimum wage.

3. Along with the Obamacare and an increased minimum wage, starting a business and keeping employees becomes that much harder. Not to mention all of the businesses which will fire or not hire anyone new.

At the rate in which jobs are sparse and college degress plentiful fast food chains will start requiring degrees just to flip burgers.

 

 

 

 

I disagree with #1. I agree with number 2. I don't understand #3. 

The main reason minimum wage doesn't make sense is that the number is arbitrary. You cannot move the floor without moving the ceiling.

[Rick Horton]

I believe a man should be able to work for as cheap as he wants. I believe there is no age to begin this. If a child wants to work, so be it, as long as it's of the child's free will. I believe it is wrong to force an arbitrary floor on what labor is valued at, and I believe that it is wrong to force a person to work if they don't want to. 

[Hannibal]

 

 

Minimum wage sucks for a few reasons.

1. It's statist garbage which means it will be enforced with a gun and someone will die because of it. 

2. It denies a person the ability to price their labor competitively if the value of the labor is less than the minimum wage.

3. Along with the Obamacare and an increased minimum wage, starting a business and keeping employees becomes that much harder. Not to mention all of the businesses which will fire or not hire anyone new.

At the rate in which jobs are sparse and college degress plentiful fast food chains will start requiring degrees just to flip burgers.

 

 

 

 

 I don't understand #3. 

 

 

 

In a price coordinated economy, as a price rises, demand falls and supply increases. This applies to labour too.

Price floors on labour leads to unemployment.

In addition to that, when a price floor is set, then there is less incentive for employers to hire the workers who's productivity matches the old, lower price. Instead they are more likely to hire workers who's productivity matches the price they are forced to pay. As such, price floors on labour leads to higher levels of qualification demanded to perform the same job that would go to a less qualified person if a minimum wage didn't exist.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

Minimum wage sucks for a few reasons.

1. It's statist garbage which means it will be enforced with a gun and someone will die because of it. 

2. It denies a person the ability to price their labor competitively if the value of the labor is less than the minimum wage.

3. Along with the Obamacare and an increased minimum wage, starting a business and keeping employees becomes that much harder. Not to mention all of the businesses which will fire or not hire anyone new.

At the rate in which jobs are sparse and college degress plentiful fast food chains will start requiring degrees just to flip burgers.

 

 

 

 

 I don't understand #3. 

 

 

 

In a price coordinated economy, as a price rises, demand falls and supply increases. This applies to labour too.

Price floors on labour leads to unemployment.

In addition to that, when a price floor is set, then there is less incentive for employers to hire the workers who's productivity matches the old, lower price. Instead they are more likely to hire workers who's productivity matches the price they are forced to pay. As such, price floors on labour leads to higher levels of qualification demanded to perform the same job that would go to a less qualified person if a minimum wage didn't exist.

 

Absolutely agree.

[Heath Long]

It is a tax that we all pay in higher prices. 

 

And there is a labor police. They are called, IRS.

[VforVoluntary49]

It's the same as any price control, except it is in labor and also gets paired with an increase in payroll tax, and now with additional costs to employers from Obamacare. $9 minimum wage does not simply cost the employer the $9 per hour, there are hiring costs and risks that will feel even higher for employeras (especially in medium and small businesses) because even hiring one or two bad minimum wage employees can cripple their business through lost productivity, wasted resources in training etc. Then they also will now be paying increased payroll tax on the $9 an hour-they match your social security withheld as well as medicare and unemployment insurance. 

It will also drive more people into multiple jobs, or the grey/black markets as price controls always do. The biggest problem with raising the minimum wage is that (ironically) it erases the one pseudo benefit that develops from the inflation of the money supply. As the purchasing power of the dollar drops and prices go up, a minimum wage that is 4. 5 years old becomes much less arbitrary and allows for more stratification right above it-people on the bottom rung who are deserving and more productive are more likely to earn raises or be hired into jobs that do pay above minimum wage (even if it's 20, 30 cents above). I had that a few years back when I was working at McDonalds-earned a $ .25 cent raise after x amount of months etc.  Unfortunately a few weeks later the minimum wage was raised .20 cents, so my "raise" was really just a nickel. What incentive is there for hardworking people to try to excel and pull themselves off the bottom rung, when the people who just scrape by or who are newly hired simply reap the same benefits right behind you?

[STer]

 

 

This thread is why people hate philosophy.

Could you elaborate?  I'd be very interest to read your thoughts on the matter.

 

The topic was supposed to be about the minimum wage. Instead it digressed into a conversation about the meaning of words and the efficacy of raising the minmum wage lost. 

If there's confusion over a word than define it. No one owns the language. It's a tool used to communicate. Define exactly how you use the word in that sentence.

 

I think you misunderstood what happened. The minimum wage issue just happened to be the vehicle for the OP to express frustration with a bigger issue - the failure of explicit logical argument to convince people. When I pointed that out, the original poster agreed that I had brought more focus to what he was trying to say in the first place. In fact, it became about the topic OP had intended all along.

But where I agree is the fact that a few people are being absurdly nitpicky about definitions even when I am quite confident they understand what is being said. I think it's just a distraction mechanism from the main point. I am all for getting clear on definitions, but only to the point where people understand the speaker's intended use. Once the meaning is understood by the people involved in the conversation, there shouldn't be any more need to keep poking at every word. But I've noticed a few people do that incessantly.

Nonetheless in the end I think the answer came to the forefront. Most people here prefer to use explicit verbal logical argument, even if most people don't respond to it as intended. I think the person who said the quality of person reached is more important to them than the quantity probably spoke for many. I myself am more open to a range of approaches, as long as they are used ethically.

[Arius]

And there is a labor police. They are called, IRS.

The IRS knows what they are told by taxpayers.  A W-2 only has total wages, not total hours worked or hourly wages,  If you file taxes for a business (corporate taxes), you will total labor costs and deduct them from revenue, but never reveal a compensation scale.  At no point is employer or employee required to reveal per-hour wages to the IRS.  Nowhere in the taxing process is any information about labor conditions revealed.

 

I think it's just a distraction mechanism
from the main point. I am all for getting clear on definitions, but
only to the point where people understand the speaker's intended use.
Once the meaning is understood by the people involved in the
conversation, there shouldn't be any more need to keep poking at every
word. But I've noticed a few people do that incessantly.

 

What is your solution to people using words in vauge ways?  What do you do when the speaker is using words to straddle several, mutually exclusive, meanings?

[STer]

 

 

I think it's just a distraction mechanism
from the main point. I am all for getting clear on definitions, but
only to the point where people understand the speaker's intended use.
Once the meaning is understood by the people involved in the
conversation, there shouldn't be any more need to keep poking at every
word. But I've noticed a few people do that incessantly.

 

What is your solution to people using words in vauge ways?  What do you do when the speaker is using words to straddle several, mutually exclusive, meanings?

 

If there is true misunderstanding, by all means clarify for the purpose of reaching a level of understanding necessary to continue toward the ultimate goal of the conversation. My point is that there are those people that will continue nitpicking at these things even after they really do get the jist of what is being said simply for the purpose of obstructing the progress of the conversation. They aren't really engaging in good faith and have no interest in helping get to the ultimate goal of the conversation. It's almost a form of trolling.

I think this is what empyblessing was getting frustrated with that made him say this is the kind of discussion that makes people hate philosophy.

[Rick Horton]

I think having a dictionary close at hand is a good way to prevent you from constantly having to ask somebody to define words. I think it's also very cool when people use the words they say, the way they are defined in dictionaries. There have been times when I don't know what a particular word means so I look it up instead of asking what the person meant. It helps keep things flowing. It's not my job to make sure others use proper definitions, so I just use the dictionary. If a person can't use words by their proper meanings then it's their fault. Why waste time asking a person if they are sure they used the word right? Just rebutt them on what the word actually is said to mean by the definitions in dictionaries. If they have an issue, it will surface soon enough.

[Arius]

I also dislike conversations in which one or both people use semantics as a tool to avoid actually having a conversation.

They aren't really engaging in good faith and have no interest in helping get to the ultimate goal of the conversation.

Well, the whole of a debate is decided in the set of definitions and assumptions used.  Perhaps they're just a hyper-strategic debaters.  Alternatively, there could be a goal conflict.  Some people debate to be right, rather than to discover what is true.

[Rick Horton]

 

I also dislike conversations in which one or both people use semantics as a tool to avoid actually having a conversation.

They aren't really engaging in good faith and have no interest in helping get to the ultimate goal of the conversation.

Well, the whole of a debate is decided in the set of definitions and assumptions used.  Perhaps they're just a hyper-strategic debaters.  Alternatively, there could be a goal conflict.  Some people debate to be right, rather than to discover what is true.

 

agreed

 

[STer]

 

I also dislike conversations in which one or both people use semantics as a tool to avoid actually having a conversation.

They aren't really engaging in good faith and have no interest in helping get to the ultimate goal of the conversation.

Well, the whole of a debate is decided in the set of definitions and assumptions used.  Perhaps they're just a hyper-strategic debaters.  Alternatively, there could be a goal conflict.  Some people debate to be right, rather than to discover what is true.

 

I don't agree that the whole debate is decided there. Even once you come to an agreement on definitions and assumptions, people can just have very different values or views of data and so on. There is still plenty to debate even after definitions and assumptions are clarified. I don't even mind someone debating to be right so much as long as they actually are trying to have the debate, not prevent the debate.

[empyblessing]

 

I think having a dictionary close at hand is a good way to prevent you from constantly having to ask somebody to define words. I think it's also very cool when people use the words they say, the way they are defined in dictionaries. There have been times when I don't know what a particular word means so I look it up instead of asking what the person meant. It helps keep things flowing. It's not my job to make sure others use proper definitions, so I just use the dictionary. If a person can't use words by their proper meanings then it's their fault. Why waste time asking a person if they are sure they used the word right? Just rebutt them on what the word actually is said to mean by the definitions in dictionaries. If they have an issue, it will surface soon enough.

 

Dictionaries do not record definitions. They record common usage. The people create the language in the free market of vocabulary. Sovereign language is the only way to understand each other in terms of ambiguity. One of the greatest dangers is that of a centralized authority on language as has been written about ad nauseum. See 1984 and Animal Farm. 

[Arius]

That warms my post-modern heart.  We shall never submit to the tyranny of the lexicon...never!

 

[Rick Horton]

 

Dictionaries do not record definitions. They record common usage. The people create the language in the free market of vocabulary. Sovereign language is the only way to understand each other in terms of ambiguity. One of the greatest dangers is that of a centralized authority on language as has been written about ad nauseum. See 1984 and Animal Farm. 

 

I cant understand you. Please define all words in those sentences.

You are using all of these "words" in your reply, but you say they have no meaning until defined by the one speaking them, so either you are writing for no particular purpose or you do understand that we both agree to use words and there defined meanings, (which can be found in the dictionary) This is a huge contridiction. I've heard Stef talk about this sort of thing ad nauseum.  Words have meanings. We agree to go by their meanings. Those meanings are shared through the invention of dictionaries. If a word no longer reflects reality, then you don't use it anymore. You use an assemblage of other words that will get you to your point. Stef also does this, very often, but he also doesn't stop to define words over and over and over, because he must believe that we all can agree that if we use a word, we are not making up our own meaning, but we are using the definition that is agreed upon, and reflected in the newest versions of dictionaries.  

[Rick Horton]

by the way, 1984 is totally irrelevent. Our dictionary is not destroying words, it is adding words. The reality is that we have more words now than we did in previous versions of the dictionary. This is consistent. New words come from expressing ideas that old words don't fully express, or express inadequately. But when you continue using the old words it is expected, and proper to abide by its definition. So you must find other means to express words that no longer fit into an old word. You don't CHANGE the meaning of the old word.  In addition to that, if a word is continually used to describe something it isn't anymore, like "government" it's simply wrong to redifine the word government. It's proper to stop USING the word government for that application, and find a new way to express what that thing that you are expressing more accurately should be described as. You may have to use more words to come up with that description. There may not be ONE adequate word for it. You may propose a new term and try to get that term to catch on, and maybe it will end up popular and become widely enough used to end up in future dictionaries. But making up definitions for previously accepted meanings of words already defined is not useful. If you use a word that can be found in dictionaries it is proper to use the word correctly. That is my argument here. If I'm wrong please "kindly" point out why and we can go from there, but let's not pretend we don't understand each other. And when you see a word you don't understand, or haven't learned yet. Just, look, it, up...