Defintions
Before any formal defintion can publically annoucne that that is the definition of anything, they should all agree completely with one another. Do you agree with this statement or not?
Agreed
Side Score: 8
|
 |
Disagreed
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
If I had a nickel for everytime I argued with someone only to realize they were also right based off the definition they were using, I'd have enough to change their definition to my definition. When our words are loose, they make our topics sound loose. A formal debate about the legal rights of anyone, can not be won with seak sounding arguments based off of partially correct definitions, and half truths and knowledge. I think all dictionary companies need to have word for word same definitions. Side: Agreed
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
2
points
Definitions are correct; Dogma is not the same as dog ma. One needs to be bright enough to use the language as it is, not wish to lower the IQ of others to their level. Noah Webster learned 26 languages in order to make America's dictionary and fought a losing battle to simplify it more than it is. He is credited for many of the changes that did take place, such as plough being spelled plow. Side: Disagreed
1
point
0
points
1
point
I disagree for a couple of reasons. One, because it's already too late for that for all the words already contained in our dictionaries (and they are some of the most pertinent to the debates we are having). Two, because, I like the idea that dictionaries (authors) - while intent on getting their definitions right... they also compete against the other authors to get it right. It's not only interesting to see the range of the various definitions. I think it's wise to consider them all before before making claim based on those definitions. Side: Disagreed
1
point
But some almost completely disregard others. Take for instance the definition of the word parasite. 1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. 2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others. This second definition states that it can be of the same species, yet you and ,wardog I think, had a definition that explicitly excluded a similar life form. Side: Agreed
As I recall, someone has already told you that one is the biological definition and the other is a social aspect or use of the word. This is a good example of what I mean by using more than one source but it's not wise to mix the many aspects of the word. Scientific definitions should be considered along with other scientific definitions... etc. Side: Agreed
|
