use Perl

• Straight and Crooked Thinking (Score:3, Interesting)

  by Simon (89) <simon-use-perl@perlhacker.org> on 2002.06.18 9:58 (#9669) Journal

  The problem comes from the fact that many people aren't aware that they use emotionally charged words, and then go on to argue their case by begging the question given the charged nature of their words.

  "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)

    by pudge (1)

    Yes, that's the fear, and I admit that sometimes I do that, but usually only when goofing around. Another example (from a similar discussion elsewhere) was "terrorist". That is an exceedingly difficult word to define, and I usually don't attempt to, but when someone says to me "this is terrorist and that is not" as a means to prove some nation is just as bad as another, and then I ask him to define the term, he shouldn't get mad at me for asking. :)
    
    • Even Muddier Water (Score:1)

      by chaoticset (2105)

      There are those who have an extensive theory of 'fourth-generation warfare' [d-n-i.net].

      --
      
      ------------------------------
      You are what you think.