Quote from: EngineI hope you mean this in the general sense, also! While sometimes I submit to "common usage," or some definition provided by another party, I personally prefer to use the arbiter of "dictionary" wherever possible.

I was thinking of another thread where you said I was using subjective and objective incorrectly. I quoted dictionary.com and you preceded to indicate I was incorrectly using the stance. This seemed to be because it did not match your chosen definition which I even conceded and included in the definitions (if I understood you correctly).

I am not the only nor the first person that you have had this difficulty with. This would seem to mean the problem is with your interpretation although I do concede that it may be that all of us are misusing the word. Contrarily, I am not claiming everyone is using the words correctly.

Quote from: EngineAs I say, both lead to miscommunication, but utilizing the dictionary as arbiter allows everyone free and clear access to a source of meaning which has no agenda. [Ironic, given the history of some dictionaries, but there it is.] In the cases in which a word has more than one dictionary meaning, some discussion must be had to determine the intended usage, but that's as bad as it gets...so long as everyone is using the dictionary, and they're using roughly the same dictionaries!

I fully acknowledge that if we all use similar dictionaries it would help. However, if you do not pay attention to the context then you will not know which definition to use. "Objective" alone has 11 definitions under one listing. If you choose:
something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.

to the exclusion of the context, then I use:
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

In context, then there is little hope we will not be dragged down into a debate of the words we are using. Look at my earlier usage of quotes (in a previous post), this is a good example of misinterpretation on your part. You believed I was quoting you where the context and colloquial usage should tell you that it was meant to denote a colloquialism or paraphrasing. Apply the standard usage of a forum to use quotes in this manner and it should be a simple extension. Now, do not misinterpret me, it would still be valid to say "I did not say that" in order to challenge my para-phrasing of your post.

Quote from: EngineMiscommunication is nearly inevitable. In my experience, precision in language and utilization of common dictionaries reduce the level of misunderstanding and provide immediate arbitration in the event of a dispute over meaning. Lax usages and reliance on "common usage" for definitions leads more often, in my experience, to protracted semantic disputes with no reasonable conclusion.

On this, I can offer only my experience. I'd share what that experience is, but now I'm concerned that might be seen as smugness.

I have seen this stance before. Do not take this as an attack but I have seen it in people with mental disorders. These patients had speech impediments and could only interpret speech literally. The had no context or understanding of colloquial speech. They would get horribly frustrated. One approach is to have them memorize dictionary definitions but this would often cause more problems since they would get frustrated in fitting definitions to the conversation. Understandable so.

As to smug, well, that depends on if you talk with people or down to them. Part of that is with the speaker and part with the listener.

Bill

Is there currently a single thread on therpgsite that has anything to do with it's title?  Not complaining, just pointing out that we have some long-running and meandering threads going on!

Quote from: walkerpIs there currently a single thread on therpgsite that has anything to do with it's title?  Not complaining, just pointing out that we have some long-running and meandering threads going on!

Tis the season for meandering...I just don't have some folks laser like focus on the OT.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltDo you mean like buying computers? Using them to post on RPG boards about environmental issues? Heck, like turning you computer on at all? Pot-Kettle-Black.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

"I don't believe in the death penalty."
"What?! So we should just let them all go?!"
"I believe in the death penalty."
"What?! So we should execute people for jaywalking?!"

This idea that if you believe in X then you must certainly follow it to some absurd extreme is an idea poisoning much of political discussion in the West today.

Quote from: HinterWeltSo, maybe drop the accusatory tone and just ask questions like someone who isn't a dick.

Jumping in with the fallacy of the excluded middle is being a dick. You're not trying to have a real conversation about the topic, you're trying to shut people up. If you want people to shut up, just be honest and tell them to shut up, don't gloss over it with some pretense at rational argument which is actually nonsense.

Quote from: James J SkachThen stop being a sanctimonious dick. You're going to end up being Kyle's clone.

Shut up and fuck up off, Jim. See, Bill? Like this. Much more honest and straightforward.

Consumption is always relative. Which you know. If you know it but talk about the absurd extremes seriously, then you're being deliberately obtuse. A dick.

You're better than that, Bill. Leave that nonsense to the fuckwits in Tangency, or those running for office.

Anyway, as I said, Spike - this is a nice clear example of one of the problems with politics in the West today. It's all this rushing to extremes and being dicks. It makes productive conversations difficult, and in a democracy, all the give and take and compromise to get majorities to pass laws, that needs productive conversations.

Quote from: Kyle AaronFallacy of the excluded middle.

Kyle, you don't even get it and I am far too busy to explain it to you. I think Engine understands where I was coming from even if he does not agree.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI quoted dictionary.com and you preceded to indicate I was incorrectly using the stance. This seemed to be because it did not match your chosen definition which I even conceded and included in the definitions (if I understood you correctly).

Yes, in the cases of conflicting dictionary definitions, negotiation must take place to determine the preferred definition. This is no worse than debating between two "common usages," and in most cases, allows easier arbitration of definitions.

Quote from: HinterWeltLook at my earlier usage of quotes (in a previous post), this is a good example of misinterpretation on your part. You believed I was quoting you where the context and colloquial usage should tell you that it was meant to denote a colloquialism or paraphrasing.

Oh, my, how embarrassing for me. My apologies, but that was one example of nonliteral speech called "sarcasm," which I really shouldn't use, because it's even more problematic online than offline. Mea culpa. My intent was to say, "Hey, don't paraphrase me wrong," but I did so nonliterally, and here you can see the misunderstanding which resulted. I've been an unfortunate proof of my own point, by example rather than by rhetoric.

Quote from: EngineYes, in the cases of conflicting dictionary definitions, negotiation must take place to determine the preferred definition. This is no worse than debating between two "common usages," and in most cases, allows easier arbitration of definitions.

See, but I think you miss the point. The context is as important to reading comprehension as any definition of the word. It is what allows us to choose the correct definition, the meaning of the writer. If you insist on applying one and only one meaning, then you can only understand when a person's usage of that word agrees with your own. You need to read the context, and then put the definition to the context.

Quote from: EngineOh, my, how embarrassing for me. My apologies, but that was one example of nonliteral speech called "sarcasm," which I really shouldn't use, because it's even more problematic online than offline. Mea culpa. My intent was to say, "Hey, don't paraphrase me wrong," but I did so nonliterally, and here you can see the misunderstanding which resulted. I've been an unfortunate proof of my own point, by example rather than by rhetoric.

This is highly problematic in your case. You ask for an extreme extent of precision in your communications but then use as vague a method as written sarcasm. I thought that was what you were doing but then I told myself that this is a very precise writer and is honestly expressing a genuine confusion. I found it rather incredible that someone whould misinterpret a grammatic usage like that but then, at the time, I was not sure how familiar you were with the language.

So, you are not an example of your point but victim of your own rhetoric. You demanded precision, built the expectation in your reader that there would be no rhetoric tactics used, that plain language with precise definitions would be used, then proceeded, without any indication to violate your own precept.

This is why semantic debates and meta-discussions of discussions serve the parties involved so poorly. Unless you are so divorced from the culture of the discussion group as not to understand cultural references (and then you are better served again by context and straight forward questions) it is best to observe and listen (or read in this case) so as to gain a comprehension of the culture you are interacting with.

Bill

Quote from: Kyle AaronShut up and fuck up off, Jim.

Man, if only you were always this brief and direct.

But I'm confused - here in the States you can be a fuck up (which I have no problem with being called), and you can tell someone to fuck off (again, isn't the first and won't be the last for me), but I'm not familiar with the "fuck up off" usage. Is that some special Australian form?

I think for explanation I need one of your thousand word essays about America that have three "It's like this" examples and demonstrate how little you know about the States.

Quote from: HinterWeltSee, but I think you miss the point. The context is as important to reading comprehension as any definition of the word.

Absolutely, and I do not believe otherwise. Context is what allows one to choose from between differing definitions in cases in which words have more than one definition, such as in the case you offered, objective [goal] versus objective [of or pertaining to the object of thought]. Context also allows one to judge when someone is using a "common misuse" of a term, such as when someone says, "D&D is the best roleplaying game, objectively." Context is very important.

Quote from: HinterWeltThis is highly problematic in your case. You ask for an extreme extent of precision in your communications but then use as vague a method as written sarcasm.

Please allow me to apologize again: I am sorry for having been sarcastic and nonliteral in my writing; I attempt not to be, particularly in somewhat serious discussions, but my pursuit of personal perfection is and always will remain ongoing.

Quote from: EngineAbsolutely, and I do not believe otherwise. Context is what allows one to choose from between differing definitions in cases in which words have more than one definition, such as in the case you offered, objective [goal] versus objective [of or pertaining to the object of thought]. Context also allows one to judge when someone is using a "common misuse" of a term, such as when someone says, "D&D is the best roleplaying game, objectively." Context is very important.

Again, we may be having a communication issue here. I refer you to //www.dictionary.com and the #5 listing of the definition of Objective:

"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."

It is quite apparent to me that the author of the sentence is using "Objective" in this form. He is using the word correctly. I do not believe his statement to be true but that is a different issue having nothing to do with the definition of the word "Objective". In his use, he is saying by some unbiased and based on factual data, DND is the best.

As for your definition, I am not confident I understand your meaning. "The Object of thought" meaning that it is of the subject matter of thoughts and thinking?

Quote from: EnginePlease allow me to apologize again: I am sorry for having been sarcastic and nonliteral in my writing; I attempt not to be, particularly in somewhat serious discussions, but my pursuit of personal perfection is and always will remain ongoing.

No need to apologize. I am merely making you aware that an attempt to have it both ways (demanding precise language usage and then employing colloquial usage) will lead to confusion in your efforts at communication. If you desire, you could just drop the insisting on one definition that does not fit the context and use colloquial or sarcasm as you will. Alternatively, using precise language and demanding precise language will keep a clearer path for communication. Finally, you could continue to switch between the two and breed confusion in your conversations. Note: I am not telling you to perform in some manner, merely discussing the results of possible paths. You are free to pursue whatever form of communication you wish.

Bill