Semantic Arguments
Back in high school my friend Dan and I would get into a lot of friendly arguments/disagreements. I realized that, regardless of the subject, there were three basic ways that we failed to agree with one another:
Subejective disagreements are easy if you can "live and let live". I like vanilla and you like chocolate. I like living in Mexican neighborhoods and they make you uncomfortable or suspicious. Different strokes for different folks.
But semantic disagreements are terribly intractable. Is abortion "murder"? Is piling naked people in a pyramid "torture"? Are Hezbollah "terrorists"? Is anything inside a tortilla a "taco"?
Semantic arguments are viruses in the software of argument - language. They distract from the actual disagreement - whether the objective reality under discussion is acceptable or not. They're almost unavoidable because you can't argue without language, and you can't use language without an agreed-upon definition. But in the end it doesn't matter what we call something, but what it *is*. For example it doesn't matter whether Abu Zubaydah was "tortured", but whether the methods and results of his interrogation are acceptable to those discussing it. It doesn't matter whether leaking Valerie Plame's covert identity was "revenge", "blowback", or "an attempt to discredit an administration critic", but whether the action was legal and protected our intelligence capability and national interests.
There is an objective reality under discussion. It doesn't matter what we call that thing, let's discuss the thing and not the word for it. Pick a word and let's move on.
See also: what is or isn't a "miracle", also qwantz.
- Objective disagreements - "Which state produces the most tacos?"
- Subjective disagreements - "What's the best kind of taco?"
- Semantic disagreements - "What do you mean by 'taco'?"
Subejective disagreements are easy if you can "live and let live". I like vanilla and you like chocolate. I like living in Mexican neighborhoods and they make you uncomfortable or suspicious. Different strokes for different folks.
But semantic disagreements are terribly intractable. Is abortion "murder"? Is piling naked people in a pyramid "torture"? Are Hezbollah "terrorists"? Is anything inside a tortilla a "taco"?
Semantic arguments are viruses in the software of argument - language. They distract from the actual disagreement - whether the objective reality under discussion is acceptable or not. They're almost unavoidable because you can't argue without language, and you can't use language without an agreed-upon definition. But in the end it doesn't matter what we call something, but what it *is*. For example it doesn't matter whether Abu Zubaydah was "tortured", but whether the methods and results of his interrogation are acceptable to those discussing it. It doesn't matter whether leaking Valerie Plame's covert identity was "revenge", "blowback", or "an attempt to discredit an administration critic", but whether the action was legal and protected our intelligence capability and national interests.
There is an objective reality under discussion. It doesn't matter what we call that thing, let's discuss the thing and not the word for it. Pick a word and let's move on.
See also: what is or isn't a "miracle", also qwantz.