Vague, Ill-Defined, or Loaded Terms in Discussions

[mikkel_the_dane]

Objectively there is no objectivity.

Well, there is. But since you are objectively playing with words for some form of effect, I will accept that as something you need right now.

 

[Revoltingest]

Internet gadflies such as the founder of modern communism himself and the Communist Party of the US!

Does he post here?
Does he ride herd on what his followers believe, & their terminology?

I suspect this kind of oversimplification....

What you would call "oversimplification", I see as
trying to observe shared definitions that are useful,
& avoid broadening them to the point of meaningless.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the internet makes the work of lexicographers easier. Soon, we'll be having dictionaries written by AI. Doubleplusgood.

Soon?
I'll wager it's already happening.
We just can't see what's behind the curtain.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Does he post here?
Does he ride herd on what his followers believe, & their terminology?

Some of them believe in abolition of personal property. Some don't. That's why overgeneralizing is pointless.

What you would call "oversimplification", I see as
trying to observe shared definitions that are useful,
& avoid broadening them to the point of meaningless.

The usefulness of some of the definitions you have shared seems quite questionable to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

It works just fine for most who use it.

Disagree.

On the other hand, trying to limit it to a brief definition that's easier to attack is bound to produce little meaning and a lot of loaded arguments.

That over-simplifies how dictionaries work.
There are primary, secondary, tertiary, & more definitions.
Context helps one select the best fit. And in many cases,
elaboration is necessary. A problem arises when people
ignore this hierarchy, & then add personal or obscure
definitions without explanation.

Hey, if calling them "capitalists who favor constitutional democracy" results in fewer overgeneralizations about them, I don't mind it much.


That leaves dozens of other communist thinkers whose works are spread out over more than a century. Did you study any?

I don't "study" such things.
Why?
Because these are highly subjective value laden works
that show only what the author believes. They say little
to nothing about what others of the modern tribes believe
or do. Reading Marx would tell me only of what he thought,
but not what anyone alive today thinks, even if they were
inspired by his work. So why spend time doing something
of so little value to me, when more interesting & useful
alternatives summon me, eh.
It's analogous to studying the Bible. To do so would inform
what those authors thought to some extent. (The various
books that became various versions of the Bible also suffer
from translation of translations of various languages, which
introduces change / error.) If I want to understand Christianity,
I converse with various Christians. This is far far more efficient
& illuminating that "studying" their scripture.

Most people aren't. You can easily answer this if you look into the details of at least a few different communist schools of thought beyond a surface-level statement like "they all want to abolish private property."

"Surface-level", eh.
I see that I've a competitor angling to de-throne
me from my status as RF's top jerk.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some of them believe in abolition of personal property. Some don't. That's why overgeneralizing is pointless.

What you call "overgeneralizing", I say is usefully defining a word.

The usefulness of some of the definitions you have shared seems quite questionable to me.

Your overly broad definitions of words makes them less useful.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That over-simplifies how dictionaries work.
There are primary, secondary, tertiary, & more definitions.
Context helps one select the best fit. And in many cases,
elaboration is necessary. A problem arises when people
ignore this hierarchy, & then add personal or obscure
definitions without explanation.

I agree that elaboration is necessary in many cases, hence the problem with assuming what all communists or socialists believe without asking or investigating.

I don't "study" such things.
Why?
Because these are highly subjective value laden works
that show only what the author believes. They say little
to nothing about what others of the modern tribes believe
or do. Reading Marx would tell me only of what he thought,
but not what anyone alive today thinks, even if they were
inspired by his work. So why spend time doing something
of so little value to me, when more interesting & useful
alternatives summon me, eh.
It's analogous to studying the Bible. To do so would inform
what those authors thought to some extent. (The various
books that became various versions of the Bible also suffer
from translation of translations of various languages, which
introduces change / error.) If I want to understand Christianity,
I converse with various Christians. This is far far more efficient
& illuminating that "studying" their scripture.

Reading the Bible could still give you major insight into the basis of most Christians' thinking, albeit to varying extents. Ditto for reading the Qur'an to understand more about the various Islamic sects.

You've mentioned conversing with communists. As a rough percentage, how many of them have explicitly stated that they would support a blanket ban on personal property (as opposed to private ownership of factories, banks, etc.)? And do you think the subset of communists you've talked to represent all or even most communists whether inside or outside the US?

"Surface-level", eh.

I think any brief dictionary definition of such a vast, umbrella label is bound to be surface-level. That's another reason not to view it as prescriptive or exhaustive.

I see that I've a competitor angling to de-throne
me from my status as RF's top jerk.

Personal attacks don't add anything useful to the discussion or further any of your points.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree that elaboration is necessary in many cases, hence the problem with assuming what all communists or socialists believe without asking or investigating.



Reading the Bible could still give you major insight into the basis of most Christians' thinking, albeit to varying extents. Ditto for reading the Qur'an to understand more about the various Islamic sects.

In my discussions with believers, reading scripture is no easy
task. Everything in them is subject to different interpretations
based upon translation quality, context, conflict with other
passages. To become versed enuf to think I actually understand
scriptures is a waste of time. Better to discover what's believed
by those who've invested their lives trying to understand it.
And ya know what?
They tell me they're still studying & trying to understand it.
And their understanding keeps changing. So I observe them,
not their book.

You've mentioned conversing with communists. As a rough percentage, how many of them have explicitly stated that they would support a blanket ban on personal property (as opposed to private ownership of factories, banks, etc.)?

I don't recall.
But I wager it would only be fodder for bickering.

Personal attacks don't add anything useful to the discussion or further any of your points.

You were being a bit snarky.
So I had a little fun with it.
I restrain myself more than you can know.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In my discussions with believers, reading scripture is no easy
task. Everything in them is subject to different interpretations
based upon translation quality, context, conflict with other
passages. To become versed enuf to think I actually understand
scriptures is a waste of time. Better to discover what's believed
by those who've invested their lives trying to understand it.
And ya know what?
They tell me they're still studying & trying to understand it.
And their understanding keeps changing. So I observe them,
not their book.

You can read their book and observe the diversity in their interpretations thereof. That seems to me more conducive to understanding than doing just one or the other.

You were being a bit snarky.
So I had a little fun with it.
I restrain myself more than you can know.

I wasn't trying to be snarky; I was just plainly stating my view on generalized, brief definitions of large and diverse groups. They're bound to only scratch the surface, if even that, of the actual beliefs of subsets within the groups.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can read their book and observe the diversity in their interpretations thereof. That seems to me more conducive to understanding than doing just one or the other.

You're welcome to spend your time that way.
But it doesn't call to me.
Our very different backgrounds could explain our preferences.
You grew up a believer. Knowing scripture would've been essential.
I've always been an atheist. Scripture was the pretext to impose
their religion upon me. I resented it.

I wasn't trying to be snarky; I was just plainly stating my view on generalized, brief definitions of large and diverse groups. They're bound to only scratch the surface, if even that, of the actual beliefs of subsets within the groups.

OK. But your seeing that as a "personal attack"
entirely missed its being a mild humous jab.
As I've oft said, you & I do not communicate well.
What I intend, & what you infer are frequently
at odds.

 

[Ponder This]

What are some terms that you find to be too vague, ill-defined, or loaded to be meaningful in any rigorous or productive discussion?

I'll start with a few:

- "The civilized world": What exactly distinguishes the "civilized world" from the "uncivilized" counterpart? Often, I see this term being used to refer to developed countries, which seems to me an implication that developing and third-world or poor countries are "uncivilized." There's no context in which I have seen this term being used where I wouldn't have found another term more accurate and less derogatory or (sometimes) less chauvinistic.

- "Western culture"/"Eastern culture": I have seen articles detailing some of the problems with these specific terms, mainly that they're generally ill-defined and too broad. For instance, the US, the UK, Hungary, and Bulgaria all technically fall within the "Western culture" umbrella, yet the first two significantly differ from the latter two culturally, politically, and historically.

Similarly, China, Iraq, Egypt, and India are all supposed to be "Eastern cultures," but they're fundamentally different from one another in so many ways that, in most serious contexts, grouping them together becomes almost entirely meaningless aside from a geographical context referring to the hemispheres of the planet.

- "Reason": A lot of the time, what someone considers to be in line with "reason" is merely a synonym for what they consider to be ideologically, politically, or religiously palatable or convincing. This is not to say that the term can't be useful; it's just that it seems to me an overused and frequently misapplied one, especially when people are being needlessly dismissive and condescending toward someone else.

Share some of yours!

I think that if a term seems too vague to be meaningful within a discussion, then that term can be made more clear or can be discarded though a process of discussion.

 

[dybmh]

I find the term "supernatural" to be an oxymoron when used to describe some phenomenon we can supposedly observe or detect (e.g., spirits or ghosts): if it is truly detectable or observable in nature, it's not "supernatural." If it's neither detectable nor observable, it's practically indistnguishable from something that doesn't exist, so how can we say that it exists, let alone that it exists and is "supernatural"?

Supernatural does not describe the phenomena, it describes the lack of any reasonable known or theorized cause. Objecting to supernatural is saying "eveything has a natural cause even if i don't know it", which is a bit of an empty assertion. It's faith based.

 

[dybmh]

Spiritual and Energy.
They don't mean anything in specific. Vague terminology that gives the impression everyone is agreeing with something... but not really.

I use spiritual as the complement to material. Do you agree that this is specific?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Supernatural does not describe the phenomena, it describes the lack of any reasonable known or theorized explanation. Objecting to supernatural is saying "eveything has a natural cause even if i don't know it", which is a bit of an empty assertion. It's faith based.

I think it is an appeal to ignorance to say that because we don't currently know what causes something, it must have a supernatural cause or be supernatural itself. It's not faith-based to simply say, "We don't know yet." I see it as a mere application of Occam's razor: there's no reason to go the extra step of positing such an extraordinary cause (i.e., a supernatural one) for something instead of acknowledging our current lack of knowledge.

 

[dybmh]

I think it is an appeal to ignorance to say that because we don't currently know what causes something, it must have a supernatural cause or be supernatural itself. It's not faith-based to simply say, "We don't know yet." I see it as a mere application of Occam's razor: there's no reason to go the extra step of positing such an extraordinary cause (i.e., a supernatural one) for something instead of acknowledging our current lack of knowledge.

Ahhhh. I understand. "Supernatural" implies it will never be known. OK. Thanks. That's very helpful.

 

[Stevicus]

This libertarian atheist capitalist actually sees more hostility
from liberals than conservatives.

Well, it could just be you. Maybe you have a way of bringing out the worst in people.

Or it could be that liberals are, by default, naturally more hostile than conservatives. Conservatives tend to be older, small town folk, while liberals are big city slickers.

 

[Revoltingest]

For comparison....

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Excerpted...
adjective
1 of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2 of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3 of a superlative degree; preternatural:a missile of supernatural speed.
4 of, relating to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
SEE MORE
noun
5 a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or 6 outside the natural order.
6 behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
7 direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.
8 the supernatural,

1. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
2. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence:a deep fear of the supernatural.

 

[Koldo]

I use spiritual as the complement to material. Do you agree that this is specific?

Good point. I was thinking more on usages like "spiritual well-being" (indistinguishable from psychological) and "spiritual but not religious" (as if it was possible to fully detach the concept of spiritual from religion and remain meaningful).