|
making the distinction that semantic arguments have nothing to do with the thing you are arguing about is kind of a semantic argument itself. It does nothing to help us solve the problem that the distinction would seem to address. If you can't get to the meat of the argument without a semantic argument, its irrelevant that it doesn't directly have to do with the topic. The real issue seems to be, restrict your arguments to those who are are capable of arguing in good faith. |
|
Making the distinction that semantic arguments have nothing to do with the thing you are arguing about is kind of a semantic argument itself. It does nothing to help us solve the problem that the distinction would seem to address. If you can't get to the meat of the argument without a semantic argument, its irrelevant that it doesn't directly have to do with the topic. The real issue seems to be, restrict your arguments to those who are are capable of arguing in good faith. |
|
It is my experience that sometimes earnest, intelligent people put forth points of view and arguments that aren't at first obviously semantic; noticing that they are and pointing it out to them often does result in amore focused, more productive discussion. Once defintitions are agreed upon, arguments can proceed to substantive disputes: is there more X or Y in the world? What will be the likely result of action Z? Was X caused by Y, or by Z? Who is actually affected by X? There are plenty of arguments with real meat on them, and sifting out the mere semantic disputes can and does help reach them. --LDC |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)