Language and Logic (General)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, April 04, 2014, 04:17 (3885 days ago) @ romansh
edited by unknown, Friday, April 04, 2014, 04:26

DHW: What is the point of your question, if you are not trying to substitute the causal meaning of "responsible" for the moral meaning? 
>Romansh:(POINT1!) As you point out below ... that is exactly what I was trying to say.
> Is there any thing devious about this?-..........-> >DHW: (the usual meaning of the word in, say, the Hitler context.) So when you say "quite the opposite" (i.e. you believe people ARE responsible for their actions), you are actually arguing they are (causal meaning) and they are not (moral meaning). 
>Romansh:(POINT2!) Yes I agree the usual meaning the sun and people being morally responsible is a nonsense. (Ignoring definitions that do not fit your idea) Having said that I have clearly stated which sense I have been using the word responsible.(Not until your hand was called on it you didn't) And you have agreed with me just now. (No he didn't. He pointed out how you twisted words by substituting the meanings to fit your own ideology.)
> 
> In return, I have been accused of being intellectually dishonest twisting words etc. (not by you) Interesting.
> 
> >DHW: Your arguments against free will are clear and sharp, but I'm afraid I can only see this one as an example of language being twisted ambiguously and equivocally to fit belief. You simply do not need this kind of device to make your case, and it only obscures the real issues. (See, told you he wasn't agreeing with you) :P -> 
> Romansh:(Point3!) I don't think I have been ambiguous. (Then why does everyone else think you were?)-> Romansh: Take Tony's denial of the use of the word responsible. Is he (in your opinion) deliberately ignoring the simple causal meaning? I find it difficult to comprehend that an educated person would deny so vociferously such a common usage. The first example I gave was from an American dictionary.-You tried to equate two separate meanings of the same word to fit your ideology. You were not clear in your intent. You made not effort to clarify your position until after you were confronted with the ambiguity. I find it difficult to comprehend that an educated person would deny so vociferously being ambiguous when it was done intentionally by conflating to separate meanings to mean the same thing.
 
> 
> >DHW: My objection to Romansh's argument (which actually fits in with your own) is not that this particular use of the word is not English, but that in order to support his belief he is using a meaning valid in one context as if it were valid in another. 
> 
> Romansh:(POINT4!) Again I never claimed it was valid in the other sense and nor do I think that.-Read points 1-4 in order. You flip flop. You used an argument to make your point and then state that your own point was invalid because of the words you chose to use. This is something that happens quite often, and is one of the reasons I find these discussions to be so darned frustrating. ----Romansh, when I say you are being intellectually dishonest, I mean you are intentionally ignoring things or lying to yourself in order to fit your ideology. Not that you are lying to us. But seriously. Read back through your own comments here, in this on singular post, you contradict yourself, arguing first one way and then another. If, in your original post, you had chosen a better word (such as 'cause', which you frequently use)for both sets, there would have been no confusion about what you meant, and this discussion would not have happened. Even if you had put some little blurb in there that clarified the statement, or if you had clarified on your own after the first mention was made. Any of those things would have been preferable. -When discussing fine points, clarity is something that we should all strive for. I am as guilty of it as you are, on occasion, and DHW/David and others have corrected me, which I appreciate more than I can express. My wrong approach to countering your argument here is just one such example from the last few years.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.