Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Glad you don't think there are multiple realities - so you admit to the reality that assault rifles are defined in law.

Can you cite this law? I say that it doesn't exist.

If such a law did exist, if it referred to semi-auto weapons as assault weapons, that would be a fraudulent definition.

vikorr wrote:

As for multiple truths - a person telling the truth is telling what they believe to be true. And what they believe to be true can vary greatly. So yes, there are multiple truths.

That is incorrect. Only one thing is true. If someone says something that they believe to be true and they are wrong about that, that is called an error.

vikorr wrote:

But putting aside the truth as it holds meaning to an individual - other examples exist of multiple social truths:
- Cultures disagree on what constitutes manners, what is polite and what is rude
- People disagree on what subjective words entails
- people disagree on what's bad for society (eg marijuana, gun control, censorship etc)

And if you want further on what people believe to be true:
- people disagree on what is moral (ie have different morals they believe to be true), or ethical (same)

Those are all difference of opinions, not differences of truth.

vikorr wrote:

- people disagree on the existence of God

There is a true answer to that question. We just don't know what it is.

vikorr wrote:

Or if you want to get philosophical, is a table a table?

Yes.

vikorr wrote:

If it is truth, then why is it tavolo in Italian, and Tabelle in German? And any of the other thousand names different peoples will have for one?

Because they are different languages with different words.

vikorr wrote:

A table is in truth - only a table by common agreement in a particular place or language (ie. there are multiple truths for the object that is called a table, because there are other true names for it). It's not actually a 'table'. It's what a table is understood to be in that place and time - (to re-iterate) amongst that group of people that commonly understand it to be a table.

The fact that different languages have different words for it doesn't change the fact that it is a table.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

If you haven't noticed by now - this playing semantics is still resulting in "You're wrong'...'No. You're Wrong!'..."Am not. You're wrong!"

Good. That is vastly preferable to allowing the left to mislead people with fraudulent definitions.

vikorr wrote:

Futility at it's best.

I disagree. I see immense value in not letting the left get away with creating fraudulent definitions to mislead people.

You may be of the opinion that this is futile. I am of the opinion that it is vital.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Good. That is vastly preferable to allowing the left to mislead people with fraudulent definitions.

You've shown nothing to say it's a fraudulent definition.

You complain about appeal to authority of legal definition, while appealing to the authority of a dictionary, which is hypocritical. You ignore that even dictionaries don't fully agree on what is the 'commonly agreed' definition. The direct implication is that many words are simply hard to pin down and define - they have a general concept.

You want to use a 'commonly agreed definition' but ignore that it's just commonly agreed, and not universal. Then, even with the definition agreeing with the majority of 'assault rifle' (only technical differences) you want to call it fraudulent.

You want to use a 'commonly agreed definition' but want to ignore:
- how they evolve
- how they vary somewhat from area to area.

You can't explain why the dictionary is more valid than the law, just answering 'it's more valid because it's more valid'.

You can't explain why it's truth, and you ignore what truth entails, and the subjectiveness of truth.

............

It's simply 'your truth'.

Being your truth, but trying to pass it off as 'universal truth' (or some such) while ignoring all the problems with it being a 'universal truth' (or some such)....it seems to me, the person presenting the fraud, is you.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

You've shown nothing to say it's a fraudulent definition.

An assault weapon is capable of full auto fire or a three shot burst.

Semi-auto weapons do not meet the definition of an assault weapon. Any definition that says otherwise is fraudulent.

vikorr wrote:

You complain about appeal to authority of legal definition,

Not really. I merely complain if a definition is untrue.

vikorr wrote:

You ignore that even dictionaries don't fully agree on what is the 'commonly agreed' definition.

If a dictionary refers to semi-auto weapons as assault weapons, that dictionary is wrong.

vikorr wrote:

You want to use a 'commonly agreed definition' but ignore that it's just commonly agreed, and not universal.

I tend to ignore things that are not true -- unless I am directly refuting them of course.

vikorr wrote:

Then, even with the definition agreeing with the majority of 'assault rifle' (only technical differences) you want to call it fraudulent.

When an untrue definition is created for the express purpose of misleading people, that is fraudulent.

vikorr wrote:

You want to use a 'commonly agreed definition' but want to ignore:
- how they evolve
- how they vary somewhat from area to area.

I remember addressing this, so it is not at all true that I ignored it.

vikorr wrote:

You can't explain why the dictionary is more valid than the law, just answering 'it's more valid because it's more valid'.

The reason is because one definition is truthful, and the other definition is fraudulent.

vikorr wrote:

You can't explain why it's truth,

It's true because it's the actual real definition.

vikorr wrote:

and you ignore what truth entails, and the subjectiveness of truth.
It's simply 'your truth'.

There is only one truth.

vikorr wrote:

Being your truth, but trying to pass it off as 'universal truth' (or some such) while ignoring all the problems with it being a 'universal truth' (or some such)....it seems to me, the person presenting the fraud, is you.

No. Telling the truth is not a form of fraud.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

The least meaningful, eh?

The least meaningful in terms of my point, and merely because it was necessary in order to ask the other two questions, which point out the futility of arguing semantics, when the reason behind the arguing semantics resides at polar opposites.

Your complaint about what people want to do in your country has little to do with me.

Quote:

You can attempt to equate the difference between a semiautomatic weapon and a select-fire weapon with the difference between gay and happy

Misleading. If you'd been honest, it would have read "you can attempt to equate the difference in definitions between assault rifle (I haven't used either semiauto or select fire) with the difference in the definition of 'gay' over time, or the difference in definition of 'thong' in different countries, or the subjectiveness of language.

Rather, you present a obscure paraphrasing that removes all the important elements so as to render it nonsense.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

...An assault weapon is capable of full auto fire or a three shot burst. Semi-auto weapons do not meet the definition of an assault weapon. Any definition that says otherwise is fraudulent...

....Not really. I merely complain if a definition is untrue...

...If a dictionary refers to semi-auto weapons as assault weapons, that dictionary is wrong....

According to you, and the people who agree with you.

Quote:

I remember addressing this, so it is not at all true that I ignored it.

You responded with 'it's valid because it's valid'. Which is not an answer. You then ignored it. This links that discussion

Quote:

There is only one truth.

Maybe in your own mind - that doesn't make your 'truth' fact, even if you believe it so.

I'm guessing it must be hard to admit the subjectiveness of truth when doing so would undermine your black & white view of the world. Perhaps there are many dearly held beliefs there, and you need to see yourself as fighting on the side of truth. But all you're doing is fighting for your subjective beliefs. Admirable if it weren't done in such a blind, one-eyed manner.

Quote:

When an untrue definition is created for the express purpose of misleading people, that is fraudulent.

....I tend to ignore things that are not true -- unless I am directly refuting them of course.

Glad you understand what fraud is. So, ignoring things that undermine your position while keeping to your position is...self-fraud?

-----------------

You haven't yet realised how their definition is as meaningless to you as yours is to them? The futility of semantics when ulterior motives exist (in both directions).

0 Replies

So far we have a poster who insists there is only one true definition (in this case, such relates to 'assault rifle') as their is only one truth, but:
- admits that words can change definition over time
- admits that one word can have multiple meanings/definitions
- admits that there are numerous true names for any single, common object
- dismisses somewhat differing definitions for the same word in dictionaries, and the reason for such differences
- hasn't yet admitted that truth in cultures differs (what is polite or rude)
- has avoided the discussion on the subjectiveness of words
- has avoided how persons truth can differ to others truth (because such only requires the person to believe it to be true)

...and in insisting that his version is the only correct version, calls all other definitions used in this thread, fraudulent.

I don't think anyone can miss why he has trouble understanding the futility of arguing semantics in this thread.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Some of your characterizations of my position are not true, but that's not important.

It is you who does not understand. Yes, I am endlessly arguing in circles with an opponent (the left) who will never acknowledge reality.

I already understood this about the left. You don't need to explain it to me.

That doesn't mean that the argument is futile!

Not arguing in circles with the left will allow them to get away with perpetrating a fraud, and they will then try to use that fraud to try to violate our civil liberties for fun.

Arguing in circles with the left will prevent them from successfully perpetrating their fraud. And that will prevent them from using that fraud in their attempts to violate our civil liberties for fun.

I don't agree that I am making a futile argument. I am of the opinion that I am standing my ground on an issue of vital importance.

I understand that the left will simply deny reality. In my view that makes it all the more important to defend reality.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Some of your characterizations of my position are not true

You haven't shown otherwise...and your quote above is just your view....but that's what we are talking about isn't it? That there isn't an absolute truth. That it is subjective. While you think otherwise, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

Yes, I am endlessly arguing in circles with an opponent (the left) who will never acknowledge reality.

Your view of reality obviously differs to others.

Quote:

That doesn't mean that the argument is futile!

Now see, what follows this, is a sensible argument...because it depends on how you apply the word to the situation. Will it ever achieve agreement on the definition? No, and so futile. It is worth battling for to keep your definition alive, if you believe in it? Yes, and so not futile...maybe.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

It is worth battling for to keep your definition alive, if you believe in it? Yes, and so not futile...maybe.

I'm doing more than keeping the real definition alive (although I'm doing that too). I'm also preventing the fraudulent definition from being accepted.

So I'm content to argue in circles with the left until the end of time, satisfied that I am achieving something important in doing so.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I'm also preventing the fraudulent definition from being accepted.

Do you have some evidence that you've managed that here? Or do you mean "I'm keeping the definition from being accepted among people that agree with me"?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

A definition can only be considered to be accepted if no one is disputing it.

I of course am disputing it vociferously.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

A definition can only be considered to be accepted if no one is disputing it.

By that measure - your own definition isn't accepted.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

That's OK. The true definition doesn't need to be accepted.

The fraudulent definition is a weapon intended to help the left violate my civil liberties.

By preventing the fraudulent definition from being accepted, I disarm that weapon and prevent it from harming me.

Since my only goal is to prevent the fraudulent definition from harming me, stalemate is a victory.

0 Replies

Oralloy sees himself as the defender of reality. Now boys and girls, THAT’S funny.

1 Reply

@snood,

Feel free to try to point out anything that I am wrong about.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

There's only one truth ?

Each word has a set,definitive, never-changing definition?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

There's only one truth ?

That's something that I am correct about.

vikorr wrote:

Each word has a set,definitive, never-changing definition?

I never said anything of the sort.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Only in your own head.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

That is incorrect. I am correct about reality, in reality.

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know