Argument with friend

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2003-02-05 12:27pm

I am having an argument with a friend of mine, who does not accpet that in order to communicate a concept in a manner in which another can understand you should use the word which has a definition EQUAL to the concept you wish to communicate. He does not seem to be able to understand this. And has argued with me at length on it. I weas wondering if anyone here has a problem with it?

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-02-05 12:48pm

...eh, what?

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2003-02-05 12:58pm

Sir Sirius wrote: ...eh, what?

Sorry my first post wasn't really clear, it is late here. I was arguing with him because he constantly uses words which don't mean what he thinks they mean. Then i asked him if he understood that in order to communicate a concept in a manner in which another can understand you should use the word which has a definition EQUAL to the concept you wish to communicate, which he says that he could "never agree with me on that". The reason I am arguing with him on this is that we frequenetly end up arguing with him on topics, only to find that the real problem is that he has fucked up definitions of many words. I am trying to get him to see his flaw and he just can't see it.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-02-05 01:11pm

Are you arguing on the basis that you have words that mean differently to each other or on the factor of you hold up a cup and he assumes a drink/ you go cup instead?

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2003-02-05 01:15pm

Tell him that without proper meanings, words are just sounds. Or that it's like a foreign language if one word for you means something totally different than what 'his word' means. How else are you going to know what his word means if it doesn't have the same meaning?

What a retard. He's the opposite of an eight-fingered smart-ass, it seems.
If what i suggested doesn't work, just start referring to all nouns as 'thing', and use 'boang' to substitute all adjetives. When he says he doesn't know what you're talking about, get mad and tell him he should simply know what your words mean, since he agrees that people don't have to share the same meanings for words.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-02-05 01:16pm

I would agree with you. Helping people with computers can difficult when they have the wrong definition or idea about any paticular issue. ie) My mom wont uses accepted terms for things like folders, links, and browsers. They are all just windows to her.

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2003-02-05 01:21pm

Ghost Rider wrote:Are you arguing on the basis that you have words that mean differently to each other or on the factor of you hold up a cup and he assumes a drink/ you go cup instead?

We argue in that I would say cup and he would think I meant drink, (He is usually not this blatantly stupid), he gets linked concepts confused and also uses very narrow definitions of some concepts. To defend his strange definitions of words he says that 1) A dictionary is not a good source for the definition of words 2) because language is changing the definitions of a word is purely subjective.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2003-02-05 02:40pm

Ah, I love these kinds of arguments.

Basically, like I said, speak gibberish so long as you can simply reply using his exact argument. When he admits that words aren't *purely* subjective, work from there and use reductio ad absurtum untill his ears bleed (if they haven't from all the gibberish yet).

Subjective words, what bullshit. Does this dildo friends of yours even know the whole fucking point of communication, or does he just like to hear his own gums flap?

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-02-05 02:42pm

Mr Flibble wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:Are you arguing on the basis that you have words that mean differently to each other or on the factor of you hold up a cup and he assumes a drink/ you go cup instead?
We argue in that I would say cup and he would think I meant drink, (He is usually not this blatantly stupid), he gets linked concepts confused and also uses very narrow definitions of some concepts. To defend his strange definitions of words he says that 1) A dictionary is not a good source for the definition of words 2) because language is changing the definitions of a word is purely subjective.

Have you considered the option that you friend may be a dumbass.....

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-02-05 02:49pm

Ah then Darth Utsanomiki is right...your friend is flapping his gums to try to make your ears bleed.

I argue about this in terms with my friends of understanding alien stuff....but upon talking, which borders on the absurd.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2003-02-05 02:54pm

"The thing's boangs is boang!! Why don't you understand the property of boang in things or some other boang things?!" Hilarity ensues.

And who is this Utsanomiki you speak of? A minute ago you mentioned my initials, but now this enigmatic person has been brought up. Perhaps it's the same person who was 'cited' for having an Eva spoiler in his sig a few months back?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-02-05 03:19pm

Yes...he is mirror universe self

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2003-02-05 03:27pm

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:Ah, I love these kinds of arguments.

Basically, like I said, speak gibberish so long as you can simply reply using his exact argument. When he admits that words aren't *purely* subjective, work from there and use reductio ad absurtum untill his ears bleed (if they haven't from all the gibberish yet).

Subjective words, what bullshit. Does this dildo friends of yours even know the whole fucking point of communication, or does he just like to hear his own gums flap?

He really doesn't understand that in order to communicate, both sides must agree on what words mean, I guess he doesn't understand, because he doesn't actually himself understand what those words mean. Sokar, yeah he can be a dumbass, what I don't get is he is brilliant at maths, and is doing well at computer systems engineering (something I could not do), and yet he can be so stupid as to not understand the basic necessities for communication.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-02-05 03:28pm

Eh...he excels at Maths but maybe was never really good at communication.

Happens...

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2003-02-05 06:15pm

Mr. Rimmer's Crazy Puppet:

There's a whole lot of varying levels and niches of stupidity, trust me. Even if you take varying subjects and fields out of the equasion, a person can be either Idiotic, Ignorant, or Incompetent, (some forms of Idealsim might be counted in this list) and sometimes two or even all three at the same time.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-02-06 01:03pm

If your goal is argue a point, don't start arguing over semantics (ie what the words mean)... try to stick with the points. If you are in disagreement over the meaning of a word, then ask him to define what HE means by using that word, and argue using his definition rather than what you think the contested word means.

Of course if he is completely wrong and you want to educate him, then go right ahead

But it might be a while before you are back to the topic at hand.

------------

I good example: In a recent argument over evolution, a fundie was trying to equate my believing that quarks exist with "Faith"

His argument was that I have "faith" in what 'scientists' have told me. I countered with the point that I place "trust" in the peer review system, and thus I "trust" that the information indicating their existence is truthful (I went into much greater detail about this system, but that's the jist).

He then said "No, my dictionary says that 'faith' and 'trust' can have similar meanings, for example...." .... (semantics).

At which point I stopped him and said that in this respect I am using the definition of trust to be "belief in the credentials and truthfulness of the scientists report, primarily based on past experiences", which is different than religious faith, which is "belief without the requirement of any proof"

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-02-06 08:21pm

1) A dictionary is not a good source for the definition of words

" A true sign of intelligence is knowing better than to argue with an idiot." Words to live by....

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2003-02-07 03:13am

Sorry, I just had to post it. I've had that idea for some weeks now, and I finally sat down to make it once I saw this thread.

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2003-02-07 03:37am

Zoink wrote:If your goal is argue a point, don't start arguing over semantics (ie what the words mean)... try to stick with the points. If you are in disagreement over the meaning of a word, then ask him to define what HE means by using that word, and argue using his definition rather than what you think the contested word means.
Of course if he is completely wrong and you want to educate him, then go right ahead But it might be a while before you are back to the topic at hand.

Nah my goal is to educate him, because we are endlessly getting into arguments with him only to find that his argument is based around strange definitions. I have basically got sick of it happening, and have tried to educate him, but he thinks that because language is 'fluid' he can define words however the hell he wants.

Darth Utsanomiko, love the pic.

Antie · Post by **Antie** » 2003-02-07 03:42am

A dictionary is not a good source for the definition of words

A dictionary records the common and accepted definitions of words. If you want to be understood by others who speak your language, it is a good idea to use words according to their accepted definitions.

At which point I stopped him and said that in this respect I am using the definition of trust to be "belief in the credentials and truthfulness of the scientists report, primarily based on past experiences", which is different than religious faith, which is "belief without the requirement of any proof"

The person is equivocating:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1 ... uivocation

Look at the example that is provided!

Nice picture, Darth Utsanomiko!

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-02-07 03:53am

Perhaps you can enlighten him by saying that if no one can understand what he's saying then it's not language...its gibberish.