Fruity Insanity Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) well it's one of the things i need to work on while using the internet. Why not start, say, now? It really isn't hard if you put a little bit of effort in. Edited January 29, 2014 by Not-an-Apple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I thought I made it clear from the beginning that I wasn't using strong in its definition of physical strength, but rather that it was a strength that humans had. Ergo, making humans "strong." Intellectually. That definition does not translate because it is metaphorical and does not increase what we mean when we say 'strong'. Saying 'intelligence is a strength' is the same as saying 'being intelligent is like being strong'. Another case that makes me wonder why people say semantics don't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 That definition does not translate because it is metaphorical and does not increase what we mean when we say 'strong'. Saying 'intelligence is a strength' is the same as saying 'being intelligent is like being strong'. Another case that makes me wonder why people say semantics don't matter. Semantics do matter. But I thought that it was implied that that's what I meant, and thus, it would be understood that way. Because it doesn't have a the literal meaning means that it can't be understood that way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) Semantics do matter. But I thought that it was implied that that's what I meant, and thus, it would be understood that way. Because it doesn't have a the literal meaning means that it can't be understood that way? Yes. Someone says 'Humans are weak (not strong).' You say 'Humans are intelligent, which is a strength.' What you said doesn't stop humans from being weak. Edited January 29, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) Yes. Someone says 'Humans are weak (not strong).' You say 'Humans are intelligent, which is a strength.' What you said doesn't stop humans from being weak. I also said at the beginning: Humans are weak. Yet they are so strong, too. Why only weak? Implying that they are two different types of strength... I completely agree that humans are susceptible to the world around them and weak physically. Edited January 29, 2014 by Not-an-Apple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ϲharlie Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) Good job, OldMan. You turned this into a Serious Discussion-esque thread. I hope you're proud of yourself. Edited January 29, 2014 by Lanselot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRDRHAWK Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 You're a semantic Bindi I see you there stop hiding now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) I also said at the beginning: Implying that they are two different types of strength... I completely agree that humans are susceptible to the world around them and weak physically. Being weak and strong is a contradiction. For the purposes of the discussion you must accept that only one of them means strong, otherwise this contradiction will arise. And it has. From where I am standing it looks like you wanted to create a second meaning for strong because you didn't like the idea that you are weak. Qualifying the claim because you couldn't disprove it. Edited January 29, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) Being weak and strong is a contradiction. For the purposes of the discussion you must accept that only one of them means strong, otherwise this contradiction will arise. And it has. From where I am standing it looks like you wanted to create a second meaning for strong because you didn't like the idea that you are weak. Qualifying the claim because you couldn't disprove it. Lol, no, I don't mind being weak. And being weak and strong isn't a contradiction if you're weak/strong in different areas. I can be strong in math, but weak in writing. Humans can be strong intellectually, but weak physically. I also wasn't trying to disprove the physically weak part. As I said before, concerning that, I completely agree. 100%. Humans are weak that way. I was just sayin'. Y'know. =P Edited January 29, 2014 by Not-an-Apple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bindi Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 You're a semantic Bindi I see you there stop hiding now I'm not hiding, I'm reaaaaading~ Not my kinda story, but whatever, gotta do it for schoooool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) Lol, no, I don't mind being weak. And being weak and strong isn't a contradiction if you're weak/strong in different areas. I can be strong in math, but weak in writing. Humans can be strong intellectually, but weak physically. I also wasn't trying to disprove the physically weak part. As I said before, concerning that, I completely agree. 100%. Humans are weak that way. I was just sayin'. Y'know. =P It is a contradiction because they are contradictory terms. This why semantics are important. Strong should not be used to describe multiple concepts in the same discussion. If I beat you in a fight and call you weak and you come back with, 'But I'm strong in chess!', you have not made a point, discounted me, or changed the result of the fight. The only reason to change the subject in this way is to give yourself an ego boost. Bonus points for changing the meaning of strong; that way you don't have to admit that you are 'ultimately' weak. For the purposes of this discussion, strong is the dictionary definition. You are strong only if you are truly strong. Thus, you are weak. That is the end of it. You do not even disagree. You can say that you are smart and weak, but why? What purpose does that serve? You are still weak. It seems that you are bringing up your intelligence simply so that you are not being represented in a purely negative light. Nothing changes but how you feel. Edited January 29, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junk Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 You're a semantic Bindi I see you there stop hiding now hmm i found out we have the same birthday today. To bad it is 3 months and 5 days away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) It is a contradiction because they are contradictory terms. This why semantics are important. Strong should not be used to describe multiple concepts in the same discussion. If I beat you in a fight and call you weak and you come back with, 'But I'm strong in chess!', you have not made a point, discounted me, or changed the result of the fight. The only reason to change the subject in this way is to give yourself an ego boost. Bonus points for changing the meaning of strong; that way you don't have to admit that you are 'ultimately' weak. For the purposes of this discussion, strong is the dictionary definition. You are strong only if you are truly strong. Thus, you are weak. That is the end of it. You do not even disagree. You can say that you are smart and weak, but why? What purpose does that serve? You are still weak. It seems that you are bringing up your intelligence simply so that you are not being represented in a purely negative light. Nothing changes but how you feel about what was said. I don't see what this has got to do with me being weak, though. I don't feel bad about it. TE said humans were weak. And we're all humans! And I, wanting to show that humans aren't just weak! We're strong, too! I was saying that humans have intelligence. Not I have intelligence. :-/ And yes, you're points are valid. But no, I think one word being used in different contexts is perfectly acceptable. Because words have different meanings. And context dictates that. That is reality. There's no need to exclude that from an argument. All you have to do is make it clear that you mean something else, something I did (I think xP). If we used words by one meaning, that wouldn't be good at all. Which is why semantics is important. Not so that words can be used by one definition alone, but by multiple definitions. I'm not arguing because I feel oppressed in any way, lol. I'm just sayin'. Also, the dictionary definition of "strong" has multiple entries, too... It's not just "physical strength." Edited January 29, 2014 by Not-an-Apple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) I don't see what this has got to do with me being weak, though. I don't feel bad about it. TE said humans were weak. And we're all humans! And I, wanting to show that humans aren't just weak! We're strong, too! And yes, you're points are valid. But no, I think one word being used in different contexts is perfectly acceptable. Because words have different meanings. And context dictates that. That is reality. There's no need to exclude that from an argument. All you have to do is make it clear that you mean something else, something I did (I think xP). If we used words by one meaning, that wouldn't be good at all. Which is why semantics is important. Not so that words can be used by one definition alone, but by multiple definitions. I'm not arguing because I feel oppressed in any way, lol. I'm just sayin'. Your post managed to ignore everything I said. You can use the word strong to mean different things in different contexts, but you can't mix contexts for the sake of your ego. Because the context was defined before you got here, strong meant the dictionary definition when you got here. You could only say that humans were strong as well as weak if you were comparing the weakest person to the strongest person, physically, and noting the contrast. Otherwise you are making the word 'strength' meaningless. You agreed, strength is determined relative to circumstance and task. Well, this is what happened. Someone said that humans were weak in contests of strength, exposure, endurance, and many other things. Then you came in and said they were strong at other tasks, ignoring the previous context. Using this method, I could find a scenario in which a mosquito would survive where a human would not and thus claim that mosquitoes are 'strong' too. While this would be valid in a discussion where everyone was talking about that scenario, no one was, and that makes me wrong to interject. I would be missing the point of the discussion completely. If I did not miss it, then I would be trying to warp the result by making the word strong mean whatever I want it to mean for the sake of making mosquitoes look not so bad after all. Edited January 29, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pride Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 well it's one of the things i need to work on while using the internet. You dont need to work on anything Let no one force notions of what is "correct" onto your mind DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO well until i dont like it, anyways then you need to stop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) But I said before, I wasn't mixing for the sake of my ego... Lol, you're talking about context. Alright. Guess what? Do you know what the first context was? I forgot, but go back, like, five pages and you'll see. It has nothing to do with what we're discussing now. Something about "studying is for the weak" and "video games are more important" and something like that. xP Edited January 29, 2014 by Not-an-Apple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 BUT ENOUGH OF THIS SERIOUS DISCUSSION-ESQUE TALK! IT ISN'T MEANT FOR THIS THREAD! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRDRHAWK Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 neither are you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 But I said before, I wasn't mixing for the sake of my ego... Lol, you're talking about context. Alright. Guess what? Do you know what the first context was? I forgot, but go back, like, five pages and you'll see. It has nothing to do with what we're discussing now. Ah, well. The ego comment is a jab and the reason doesn't affect the problem with doing it. You shouldn't be mixing for any reason because it only hurts communication. If you forgot then you don't even know what point you would be making. It's not worth my trouble to do your work for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junk Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 hmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Ah, well. The ego comment is a jab and the reason doesn't affect the problem with doing it. You shouldn't be mixing for any reason because it only hurts communication. If you forgot then you don't even know what point you would be making. It's not worth my trouble to do your work for you. Jabbing me on purpose?! Meanie. ;~; Lol, all right. It was something about studying being for the weak and video games being more important. Something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Studying being for the weak makes perfect sense in this context. Only the weak need to study to survive; stronger species can get by without it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Laufeyson Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 You're a semantic Bindi I see you there stop hiding now *lurks out of the wormhole* Now i see why Bindi hides sometimes. *goes back into wormhole* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Studying being for the weak makes perfect sense in this context. Only the weak need to study to survive; stronger species can get by without it. That's not what the context was, though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Didn't the justification for studying being weak jump straight to the dictionary definition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.