All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
use Perl Log In
pudge (1)
(email not shown publicly)
http://pudge.net/
AOL IM: Crimethnk (Add Buddy, Send Message)
I run this joint, see?
Definitions
It is amazing to me that people chastise me for requiring definitions for words used in arguments.
This morning someone said the US has "slaughtered" many innocent civilians in Afghanistan, as if the statement were supposed to prove in itself that the US has done something wrong in its actions in Afghanistan, because obviously "slaughtering" is bad. Perhaps the US had done something wrong, but if this statement were to prove it, I needed to know what definition of "slaughter" he was using. He got on my case for "playing with the definitions of standard words".
Well, excuse me. You intended to prove something with a word, and I demanded you define your terms. If "slaughter" means merely "killing", then I want more information about how and why the killing is wrong. If it means "intentionally killing," then I want to see evidence of many innocent civilians being intentionally killed.
I can't understand why anyone would ever have a problem with requiring that critical and unclear words in an argument be defined. To progress in an argument without ensuring everyone is using the same words in the same way is nonsense; it is not useful communication, it is different people saying different things and not understanding each other. To use a word and then not want people to know what you mean by it is nonsense; it is not useful communication, it is obfuscation.
because that's exactly how much difference there is. :-)
--Larry Wall in <10209@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
what do you mean by 'many'? (Score:2, Interesting)
Surely the state sponsored murder (intentional killing) of even one innocent civilian is too many. And illegal under US law if memory serves.
Which begs the question of what is 'intentional killing'. If the conversation went "Doing this will probably result in the deaths of "n" innocent/non-combatant people."
"Okay, those are acceptable losses, do it."
Would those count as intentional killings? How big does n have to be (as a perc
Re:what do you mean by 'many'? (Score:1)
Sometimes it does descend into an endless pit of defining and redefining every word. At that
Straight and Crooked Thinking (Score:3, Interesting)
"Slaughtered" is a good example. US soldiers "slaughtered" someone and, therefore, (as the unspoken assumption goes) since "slaughtering" is evil and bad, then the US soldiers are evil and bad.
Replacing "slaughtered" with "killed" removes some (but not all) of the emotive nature of the word. There was a lovely little book called "Straight and Crooked Thinking" (now sadly out of print) which exposed this and similar fallacies. (confusion of "some", "many" and "all", for instance, and argument in a circle)
So I agree that precise terminology in debate is fundamental. Even so, I think it's bloody annoying trying to argue with someone who has no problems coming out with "it depends on what your definition of "is" is". :)
Reply to This
Re:Straight and Crooked Thinking (Score:1)
Even Muddier Water (Score:1)
------------------------------
You are what you think.