>UHMMMM THAT'S A SEMANTIC ARGUMENT!!!surely all disagreements are down to semantics though? name a non-semantic disagreement
just don't use language bro
>>24936155Speaking of which...
>name a non-semantic disagreement
>>24936155The Four Great Errors from Twilight of the Idols
>>24936207>The Error of Free Willnietzsche means free will in terms of individual responsibility, so it's a semantic argument as that's not what people typically mean by free will
>>24936203>We must observe to begin with that meaning is not to be identified with naming, or reference.>in order to have an argument you MUST accept my definitions of vords without question!!!a dogmatic, semantic argument
>>24936431not what semantics means, concession accepted
>>24936224I was asked to name 1, not 4
Stirner was right about everything, every critique of him is a bitch ass asspull >b-but le material conditions!>b-but le mussolini!>b-but le word games!
>>24936155Was Stirner pro-rape? I've gotten mixed responses.
>>24936496you're LITERALLY making a semantic argument and proving me right again>>24936519i assume the rest are the same
>>24936590not what semantics means, concession accepted
>>24936155Abortion.
>>24936621this is a semantic argument
>>24936590>assumptionsuh oh, that doesn't sound like an appeal to semantics....
>>24936155Mathematical platonism. How to pronounce the letter z. Whether apples taste better than oranges. Whether the dress is blue or orange. What is game of the year of 2025. Whether Joyce or Nabokov had better prose. Whether Monet or Van Gogh was the better impressionist. Was Beethoven black. Debating the merits of logical positivism, philosophical naturalism and scientism. Whether anything past chapter 1 in Descartes' Meditations is worth reading. Whether Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist or not. Whether twitch streamer Hasan shocked his dog or not (he did). Whether video games are art or entertainment. Who is the funnier Canadian comedian: Martin Short or Norm Macdonald. Whether one should say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays to the uncs and aunts at dinner. Whether Nietzsche disproved all metaphysics or not. Should Socrates have drank the hemlock. Is the theory of hypostatic union sufficient enough to explain 1st century AD kenosis theology. Whether Canadians should start using imperial or stick with the metric system. Whether Quebecois have ugly accents. Do podcasts make people dumber and does Instagram make people suicidal. Whether the planet has more Chinese or Indian people. Is 2 a prime number or not. Does Greek food taste better than Spanish or Lebanese. Was 90s fashionwear fly or retarded. Is Castlevania IV overrated or not. Whether one should dance in the rain even if one cannot hear the music. Should I eat a sandwich for lunch or apples and eggs even though my wife thinks I need to watch my cholesterol but she's an overbearing hag so fuck her. Is Baneposting eternal or just a generational fad like saxophones in pop songs or Asian women with gyatts. Did the holocaust happen. Do jews rule the world. Can libertarians ever have sufficient arguments pertaining to fire hydrants and satellites. Do leftists deserve the death penalty. Do lesbians actually exist or are they all just crypto-straights and cowardly bisexuals. Are men smarter and taller and cooler and better romantics than women. Is the best episode of Arrested Development Afternoon Delight or The Ocean Walker. Is global warming real or was it invented by centrist democrats in the 1990s to sell hoodies with pictures of panda bears on them. Was Gary Webb assassinated by the CIA. Was Martin Luther King Jr assassinated by the CIA. Will I be targeted by the CIA for posting this comment. Will the next album reviewed by Anthony Fantano get a strong 9 or a decent 4. Is Donald Trump really a pedophile rapist or does he just really like bubba pizza. Is Obama gay. Is Michelle Obama trans. Can I fuck women really into astrology just by impressing them with tarot knowledge and magic tricks or do I just buy them drinks. Is Thomas Sowell the smartest black man on the planet. Who are the most racist countries and why are they Italy & Southern India. Whether one should laugh at a stand-up comedy act on a date at a racist joke or suppress it to fit in with the normals.
>>24936643this is a semantic argument
>>24936649sounds like you're making another assumption, anon-kun....you wouldn't be moving the goalposts AGAIN, would you uwu?......
>>24936654this is a semantic argument
did kurt cobain actually commit suicide or was it all a set-up. pretty easy. you seem bad at this.
Should a woman live in the woods with a bear?
>>24936431No one said this retard>>24936540Yes>>24936590>i assume the rest are the sameYou only like pretending to read so I guess you'll never find out
>>24936659
>>24936155Here you go.
>>24936155How many angels are in the Bible?
>>24936155Individualism vs collectivism is not semantic.I live for myself, Good and Bad actions are such for what they do to *me*, and when I say others do Good and Bad things I mean it is Good or Bad for themselves.VSI live for society, or an ideal, Good and Bad actions are such for what they do to others, or how they affect the reaching of my abstract goal, and when i say others do Good and Bad things I mean it is Good and Bad for the utility of mankind, or for progress, the harmony of society, or the family, or any collective.
>>24936155>UHMMMM THAT'S A SEMANTIC ARGUMENT!!!I'm not Jewish asshole
>>24936684pointing out that something is a semantic argument does not mean i am moving the goalposts. this is a semantic argument.>>24936680>No one said this retardI just quoted it from the two dogmas of empiricism.>We must observe to begin with that meaning is not to be identified with naming, or reference.saying that meaning does not mean naming, and we must accept this in order to have an argument, is semantics>You only like pretending to read so I guess you'll never find outyawn>>24936697semantics>>24936726semantics>>24937170>when I say others do Good and Bad things I mean it is Good or Bad for themselves.semantics
The map is not the territory. Arguing about the map itself instead of what it references is different from arguing about the actual territory.
>>24937407the territory no longer exist and the map is actually a map of the map
>>24936155Any disagreement in which the terms under scrutiny have been clearly defined and agreed upon cannot really be considered semantic. If I say there are 3 apples on the table, and you say there are 4, despite both agreeing on the meanings of “3” and “4” and the implied difference between them, what is there left to talk about with regards to semantics?
>>24937407saying the map references the territory is a semantic argument. saying that in order to argue about territory we should agree that this map references territory leads to ridiculous definitions going unchallenged.
>>24937432>Any disagreement in which the terms under scrutiny have been clearly defined and agreed upon>Any disagreement in which the terms have been agreed uponso any "non-semantic" argument requires you to agree without question to a semantic definition, without question?
>>24937407>>24937440No alternative works. In a world with no territory any map would work as well as any other. You can't decide you have telekinesis, if your map says you do then you're delusional.
>>24937469Yes. You’re tying yourself up in knots over this. >semantic definitionThe addition of “semantic” here is meaningless btw. If you can have a semantic definition, does that also mean you can have a non-semantic definition? If the answer is no, then what good was it adding “semantic” to “definition” in the first place?
>>24937482my point was about "non-semantic" arguments actually being semantic arguments, not about semantic arguments being practical. obviously in order for arguments to be possible me should agree on the definitions of words. what we should not do is automatically accept ridiculous definitions of words.>>24937487>Yescool>If you can have a semantic definition, does that also mean you can have a non-semantic definition?what is referred to as a "non-semantic" argument is automatically accepting a definition without question in order for the argument to continue. what i am critiquing is someone making a distinction between an argument where definitions are automatically accepted and one where definitions are questioned-the former is non-semantic and the latter is "semantic".>If the answer is no, then what good was it adding “semantic” to “definition” in the first place?because a hard distinction is made between semantic and non-semantic arguments in common usage.again, my point is that there is no such this as a non-semantic argument, which you agreed. you then questioned what the point of a distinction between semantic and non-semantic is, which I pointed out.
>>24937508>what i am critiquing is someone making a distinction between an argument where definitions are automatically accepted and one where definitions are questionedJust because you agreed on the definitions relevant to the argument doesn’t mean they were “automatically” accepted, maybe you spent some time coming to agree on those definitions prior to the actual (or “non-semantic”) argument. But these are separate arguments. Once the initial semantic disagreement is settled (ie, you agree on definitions), then whatever argument that follows is non-semantic.>my point is that there is no such this as a non-semantic argument, which you agreedNo I didn’t. I said a “semantic definition” (your exact phrasing) doesn’t exist because the inverse is equally as incoherent. The use of “semantic” here is entirely redundant.>you then questioned what the point of a distinction between semantic and non-semantic isSee above. There really is no point taking this discussion further until you get better reading comprehension (both of my posts and of your own).
>>24937508>what we should not do is automatically accept ridiculous definitions of words.Why not? What does "accept" mean? I can look at the presented map and attempt to relate it to the subject without pretending the map has accessed some holy divine truth.Quite often the best way to communicate is through metaphors and symbolism that slowly builds up a coherent picture that can't be easily built using direct language. Someone autistically worrying about definitions will never grasp what's being referenced.
Do feminists have empathy
>>24937579Can you pin down one ideal from all the feminists of the world and history?Do you mean to ask "does feminism allow for empathy?" Of course.
>>24937357
>>24937532>Just because you agreed on the definitions relevant to the argument doesn’t mean they were “automatically” acceptedfine, i guess my point is the semantic argument is the more interesting one and the only one where statements beyond i agree and i disagree can be made>Once the initial semantic disagreement is settled (ie, you agree on definitions), then whatever argument that follows is non-semantic.then what argument can there be, if every definition in the argument is agreed upon? you might as well just say i agree or disagree. perhaps i misspoke-i should have said argument instead of disagreement in the OP>No I didn’t. I said a “semantic definition” (your exact phrasing) doesn’t exist because the inverse is equally as incoherent. The use of “semantic” here is entirely redundant.i've explained what i meant-a definition used in a semantic argument as opposed to a definition used in a non-semantic argument.>There really is no point taking this discussion further until you get better reading comprehensionso you're abandoning the semantic portion of the argument because you don't care about meaning and want to argue over the definitions of words? how ironic>>24937535>What does "accept" mean?obviously you can't argue with yourself. in an argument between two people, one person would suggest the map references X and then to continue the argument the other would have to accept the map references X. trying to debate semantics with yourself is retarded>>24937586yes, that is what semantics is
>>24936537Yeah you didn't read him either.>>24936623/thread
>>24937606>obviously you can't argue with yourself.It's called thinking.>the other would have to accept the map references XJust that the other party believes what he's saying maps on to x. Exploring how and why he would think that is the foundation of sincere communication and critique with substance.
>>24937583sorry the correct answer is no they dont
>>24936155Should a classical musician looking to branch out start studying 1920s blues or 1930s jazz
>>24937631>It's called thinking.that's not what we would call an argument though>Just that the other party believes what he's saying maps on to x.then that is not an argument about what the map represents, but rather an argument about what that guy thinks the map represents
>>24936627not what semantics means, concession accepted
>>24937668this is a semantic argument
>>24937651>that's not what we would call an argument thoughIt is. A structured thought is reasoned like an argument. The only value of debate is to help us think.>then that is not an argument about what the map represents, but rather an argument about what that guy thinks the map representsThis is a good example of empty semantics. Some guy presents a map, I look at it and try to understand what each part is supposed to reference according to the guy. If I see something that helps me navigate the territory better I use it. If there's an obvious discrepancy between what the map predicts and what the territory is really like then that's a flaw in the presented worldview.
>>24937676>A structured thought is reasoned like an argument.you don't need to convince yourself or understand what someone else is thinking>This is a good example of empty semantics. no it isn't, because in that scenario I would not believe the map represents anything. >If I see something that helps me navigate the territory better I use it. If there's an obvious discrepancy between what the map predicts and what the territory is really like then that's a flaw in the presented worldview.you have the mind of a blacksmith
>>24937606>then what argument can there be, if every definition in the argument is agreed upon?People can agree on definitions and still argue on (for example) ethical judgements. I can be a pro-choice person in an argument with a pro-lifer despite agreeing with them that the foetus is a life - maybe I just think the bodily autonomy of the mother trumps the foetus’s right to life. Where is the semantic argument there?> you might as well just say i agree or disagreeUltimately you do have a point here - and you’re not totally wrong to suggest that the semantic argument is the interesting one. But to say it is the only one is misguided and reductive.>a definition used in a semantic argumentBut no definitions are “used” in a semantic argument, there is no application yet as they are precisely what is subject to scrutiny in the argument.
>>24937692> I can be a pro-choice person in an argument with a pro-lifer despite agreeing with them that the foetus is a life - maybe I just think the bodily autonomy of the mother trumps the foetus’s right to life. surely that is you making a different argument altogether? "a foetus is a life so you can't kill it" vs "the bodily autonomy of the mother means you can kill foetuses".>But to say it is the only one is misguided and reductive.but the point is the non-semantic argument is essentially just saying "i agree or "i disagree" or making a completely different argument, which would require a different set of semantics anyway so it wouldn't be non-semantic. in what sense is saying i agree/ disagree it a real argument? in a technical sense?>But no definitions are “used” in a semantic argumentok the definitions WITHIN a semantic argument, that MAKE UP a semantic argument.
>>24936590>literallyuh oh someone made a stinky
>>24937717it's a rhetorical device you pseud
>>24937741Everyone who passed grade 9 English class literally already knows that. You just literally don't know how to literally use it properly.
>>24937748i used it because it makes the sentence sound better, which is rhetoric 101
>>24937771It literally made the sentence sound literally worse
>>24937777no accounting for shit taste
>>24937771I don't take people who can't be bothered to use capitalization seriously.
>>24937771>violating the law of less is more>rhetoric 101probably the most retarded poster on this board and that's saying a lot
>>24937637>He doesn't understand what he just read>He still thinks feminism has, as a doctrine, no empathy>He doesn't know women are the most empathetic sex.
>>24937783why, you should be listening to the rhythmn and cadence of the words in your mind rather than checking for grammar, which is only there to aid that cadence>>24937787that's not what rhetoric is, dipshit. not my fault you have no aesthetic taste
>>24937777Checked
>>24937508Study logic.https://www.juristpanel.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/A-Rulebook-for-Arguments_compressed.pdfhttps://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watthttps://archive.org/details/logick_2507_librivoxhttps://archive.org/details/peter-kreeft-socratic-logicNov 14, 2023 https://youtu.be/-CUcYOT2BzcNov 24, 2023 https://youtu.be/_0-EM6hr4IcDec 6, 2023 https://youtu.be/fREgfDIlSPcDec 29, 2023 https://youtu.be/Ug4IdNt0mfkFeb 19, 2024 https://youtu.be/lvB7J8gphSwFeb 23, 2024 https://youtu.be/MJy7a7_H83gApr 2, 2024 https://youtu.be/KCag3jyc1o8Apr 29, 2024 https://youtu.be/bmeOyIMDvXkJul 3, 2024 https://youtu.be/--ZcD6Odm-4Jul 4, 2024 https://youtu.be/ajEXwvfriE8Jul 26, 2024 https://youtu.be/vVYconX8lzQSep 15, 2024 https://youtu.be/SAqSxwY4cecJune 26, 2025 https://youtu.be/Z3k7eLRiwOISep 26, 2025 https://youtu.be/EINouOeV0Akhttps://annas-archive.org/md5/7dd390a7784e5e7507669ea271466ff7https://annas-archive.org/md5/5af2e8e2eb3a07c46df10b2de453775chttps://books.google.com/books?id=IcgAAAAAMAAJhttps://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicaehttps://archive.org/details/anelementarytre00uffogoog
>>24937794Write like a civilized and educated human being or be dismissed like a dog shitting in the street. The choice is yours.
literally retarded kek
>The choice is yours.
>>24937803picrel is from https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
>>24937803logical arguments are themselves based on semantics>>24937808that's your dumb decision to make>>24937812literally nah
>>24937812>>24937813Go back to spamming /tv/.
>>24937792ywnbaw (second w stands for whore)
>>24937817Nothing is more futile than having a discussion about logic with people who haven't studied one page of logic in their life. I don't do it anymore, I just dump resources to study.
I just got here. Is the entire thread just OP getting gangbanged?
>>24937832Yes. He seems to love it thoughbeit. He keeps offering his bussy up.
>>24937830have you considered that trying to use arguments that nobody else accepts makes you the retard, not everybody else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
>>24937832no it's a bunch of one word answers to the OP and two people seething over me not using caps and saying literally>>24937841except i am defining those words so that argument (that i don't accept) doesn't apply
>>24937837Would this image be an acceptable summary of the semantics sperg that is OP?
>>24937839I haven't made any arguments whatsoever in this thread. I just skimmed through it, saw that everybody knows nothing about logic and that it's a dumb discussion, and then dumped good resources. I suggest beginning with https://www.juristpanel.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/A-Rulebook-for-Arguments_compressed.pdf, it's a small book, a good primer.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeamyERJVQLDHH0zijOOpqULKD6yU2Uxe
You call THAT a semantics argument? THIS is a semantics argument.
>>24937849how about you read the thread instead, dingus. that's actually what i suggest people who make non-semantic arguments are doing>>24937855suggesting that an argument is dumb because it doesn't use logic is an argument
>>24937848literally incorrect
>>24937777quads of truth, OP literally assraped LMAO>>24937794that's not what aesthetics is, dipshit. not my fault you have no transjective semantic indexicality
maybe I should make a higher resolution version, it's pretty grainy
>>24937822>You will never be a whoreNo. I won't.
>>24937870>an informal fallacy resulting in the failure to define one's terms,i have defined them (perhaps not in the OP)>knowingly and deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand.i have defined them, so the audience understands what i mean by those words.>>24937875good rhetoric IS aesthetic>>24937876see;>>24937841
>>24937885>>>24937876(You)>see;>>>24937841(You)What? I posted both those posts.
>>24937849Yes. /thread
>>24937896ok, then why are you suggesting that "argumentation" means inferring one proposition from two or more propositions. how is that not "knowingly and deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand."? how is that the standard definition of "argumentation"?>>24937900you're dumb
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKI1h_nAkaQq5MDWlKXu0jeZmLDt-51onhttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqsoWxJ-qmMtr7i6D_yvSpPC-hTOzdWas
>>24937911stop spamming this shit you spastic
>>24937917nah, this thread is dumb, I'm doing a good thing, fuck off
>>24937922no you think it's dumb because you're a sperg who thinks any argument that doesn't fit a set of arbitrary criteria is wrong
>>24936648OP cowers in the shadow of this goliath of a post kwab
>>24937849i have explicitly opposed this way of thinking;>then what argument can there be, if every definition in the argument is agreed upon? you might as well just say i agree or disagree.see;>>24937606
>>24937911keep spamming this shit you based spastic
>>24937936you're a poopnose and probably;>>24937586or;
>>24937943are you this kid;>>24936496
>>24937948no but he's based too
OP is technically right but whats the point of just having a bullshit argument that gets bloody nowhere? Like haha yes its all language games wow youre soooo smart and above everyone else dude but have you ever stopped to consider those language games have real world applications and implications that can indeed shape into objectivly true things? If someone wanted to take your freedom of speech away by declaring X or Y is not allowed would you just sit down and tell yourself "heh who cares you are all losers cucked by language" or actually engage with it so you can keep being a smug dickhead online? "Hehe all language is false and full of stupidity" well what's your fucking alternative smart guy? This is the type of shit that doesn't even pass on a bar table much less actual practicd
>>24937954Sorry I didn't mean to attach that image on that post I wanted to put picrel
>>24937885literally incorrect
>>24937949based on being a retard?>>24937954maybe if you read the fucking thread you'd see that my point is semantic arguments are more interesting than non-semantic ones and arguments should not be dismissed as "semantics">"Hehe all language is false and full of stupidity" not what i said.>>24937961no idea what you're replying to
>>24937904>>ok, then why are you suggesting that "argumentation" means inferring one proposition from two or more propositions. how is that not "knowingly and deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand."? how is that the standard definition of "argumentation"?I have no idea what you're trying to say. That is what argumentation is. People have all kinds of fallacious ideas about what it is. I posted the link about equivocation just to read, because it's relevant to the thread, I wasn't implying that any particular poster or post was an equivocation. Many aspects of argumentation have to do with semantics, but it's not ALL of what argumentation is.https://www.rexresearch1.com/DebateLibrary/AttackingFaultyReasoningDamer.pdfhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DialecticThis thread is mixing two different meanings of the word "argument", argument meaning disagreement, and argument meaning supporting a claim.
>still cowering
>>24937691You either can't or refuse to think.
>>24937970>That is what argumentation is. People have all kinds of fallacious ideas about what it is.simply stating one proposition isn't an argument? you're fucking retarded>I posted the link about equivocation just to read, because it's relevant to the thread, I wasn't implying that any particular poster or post was an equivocation. >it's relevant to the thread, i just can't point out a single post carrying out equivocation!!!>This thread is mixing two different meanings of the word "argument", argument meaning disagreement, and argument meaning supporting a claim.you're the one saying there's only one non-fallacious definition of argument and it's some sperg nonsense about "multiple propositions">>24937984i can think, it's just not relevant to an argument between two people. you should be trying to think the same thing or accepting you think two different things and ending the argument.
>>24937984It's the first one
>>24937817Logic works independently of the medium and every "argument" you make is an appeal to logic, a subject you refuse to glance at.What you "accept" is irrelevant to anything except how wilfully retarded you are.
>>24938006>every "argument" you make is an appeal to logic, a subject you refuse to glance at.if i am supposedly being logical (which i assume is what appealing to logic means), then why are you spamming this thread and calling me illogical?>Logic works independently of the medium word salad>What you "accept" is irrelevant to anything except how wilfully retarded you are.of course it is. arguments are based on two people either accepting first principles or not accepting first principles. you are the one suggesting that if i don't care about all the shit you're spamming my arguments are invalid-that's your first principle. i don't accept that first principle, therefore we fundamentally disagree
>>24938022literally incorrect
>>24938067sped
>>24936155Is this a duck or is it a rabbit?
>>24938000Again, I didn't post the link about equivocation to imply that any post was an equivocation. I posted it because it's very relevant to the concept of "arguing about semantics". If you studied logic you wouldn't take things personally all the time, and wouldn't assume things that aren't stated explicitly and then just run with that assumption in your further argumentation, that's a big mistake.Yeah, just stating a proposition is NOT argumentation/an argument. An argument is supporting one proposition with one or more other propositions. Watch this video, it's a good summary of what an argument is:https://youtu.be/vgqpuQ4QnlEThen read https://www.juristpanel.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/A-Rulebook-for-Arguments_compressed.pdf>All men are mortal.>Socrates is a man.>Therefore Socrates is mortal.^This is an argument. Each line is a proposition. Each line by itself, on its own, is not an argument, but merely a proposition.What is a proposition? All the books and other resources I posted explain it. Basically a proposition is taking two things, called terms, and either saying that they agree or that they disagree, joining them or disjoining them.X=YX=/=YThe two terms of a proposition are called subject and predicate. The linking verb is called the copula, it's normally "is" or "is not". These two books also talk about it:Principles of general grammar. Comp. and arranged for the use of colleges and schools by Roemer, Jeanhttps://archive.org/details/principlesgener00roemgoogPrinciples of general grammar : adapted to the capacity of youth, and proper to serve as an introduction to the study of languages by Silvestre de Sacy, A. I. (Antoine Isaac)https://archive.org/details/principlesgener00sacygoogAlso learn about enthymemes.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnthymemeThis book talks about enthymemes:https://annas-archive.org/md5/5885cebb239fbd36f6c370d49c44018bThere's a very good reason why people are very confused about these things. We are not taught these things. They don't want you to know these things. We have the Prussian education system, which is all about suppressing the trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric)/critical thinking for the masses.https://youtu.be/AOcy6RHw7A8
>>24938082it is an image with the appearances of a duck from one position or a rabbit from another. learn what qualities are>>24938087>I posted it because it's very relevant to the concept of "arguing about semantics". it's completely irrelevant to anything i posted>Yeah, just stating a proposition is NOT argumentation/an argument.i guess saying you're retarded isn't an argument either
OP is definitely a manchild genreslopper
>>24938107we figured that out 10 posts in
>>24938100answer the question coward
>everyone arguing over whether or not all arguments are semantic arguments>no one taking the time to ask whether all arguments are semitic argumentsJews will not divide us
>>24938114i just did>>24938107>>24938109you're too dumb to argue with
>OP still offering up that tight throbbing bussy for gangrape
>>24938022You seem to be confusing multiple posters. The guy you replied to is not the guy who posted a bunch of links, that's me. Proudly spamming. First of all, as I said earlier, there are two different meanings of "argument", one means disagreement, the other means supporting a claim. You keep mixing these two, so then you are committing equivocation, even though when I posted the link about equivocation I wasn't implying that anyone was committing equivocation.Secondly, no, disagreement is not only about semantics or first principles. There are other aspects. Just to take one example, semantics is contrasted with syntax in linguistics and grammar. Now if one word can have more than one meaning and two people are disagreeing about the meaning, or one person is changing the definition mid-argument that's equivocation. But if a whole sentence can be interpreted in multiple ways and people are disagreeing about that, or someone is misunderstanding someone else in regards to that, or someone is changing the interpretation deliberately or by mistake mid-argument then that's not semantics but syntax, the fallacy that involves syntactic ambiguity is called amphiboly.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_ambiguityhttps://youtu.be/-OuEZSDus5ghttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP63BZGNOqrF2qf_yxOjuG35j
>>24938100>it's completely irrelevant to anything i postedSo? I wasn't quoting you, nor are you the only person here. You take everything personally because you know zero logic.>i guess saying you're retarded isn't an argument eitherSo you're not here to discuss, good to know, I'm leaving now, I posted links, take it or leave it, I don't care, learn or remain ignorant.
>>24938139if by "gangrape" you mean subhumans not even bothering to make coherent arguments, then sure>>24938142>here are two different meanings of "argument", one means disagreement, the other means supporting a claim. i would not need to support a claim if there wasn't a disagreement. one would not disagree if there wasn't someone supporting an alternative claim. as the two definitions are inseparable (one cannot be true without the other also being true), then where is the problem? >But if a whole sentence can be interpreted in multiple ways and people are disagreeing about thatis that a disagreement, or is that a misunderstanding? a disagreement would be two people knowing exactly what the other defines a word as, and disagreeing that. you're describing a misunderstanding, where each incorrectly thinks the other is defining a word one way when they define it another way>>24938156>So? I wasn't quoting you, nor are you the only person here. You take everything personally because you know zero logic.you're spamming my thread with offtopic shit>So you're not here to discussi am not here to have my first principles questioned
>>24938142This picture is nonsense. You'd use different word order and particles like no if you wanted to describe these other situations. First one will be assumed by a rational nihonjin
>>24938201>this filtered
>>24938207i thought you'd left. i was happy
Based on what?
>>24938399>a proposition isn't an argument but a proposition derived from two or more propositions isriveting stuff. i disagree
You have to start with the basics of logic.Watch this video, it's 5 minutes long.https://youtu.be/vgqpuQ4QnlEAn argument consists of two parts:1) two propositions known as premises (but often one is unstated, when one is unstated the argument is known as an enthymeme)2) a proposition known as the conclusionpremises ----> conclusionThis is a simple or short argument. Oftentimes an argument is an extended or compound argument. That's where multiple simple or short arguments are stacked on top of each other, such that the conclusion of one simple argument is a premise in a succeeding simple argument.argument 1premise 1 + premise 2 ---> conclusion 1argument 2premise 3 (=conclusion 1) + premise 4 (new information) ---> conclusion 2argument 3premise 5 (=conclusion 2) + premise 6 (new information) ---> conclusion 3And so and and so forth, until you have for example 10 simple arguments forming one compound argument.When you disagree with someone else, there are different ways you can do that. You can disagree with one or more of the premises — and this is probably what you mean by "semantic disagreement" but that's a misnomer — or you can disagree with the inference, disagree that one proposition can be inferred from the premises. Every time we accuse someone of committing a formal fallacy, we're in the latter domain.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacyA proposition is either *true* or *false*, and all premises and conclusions are propositions.An argument on the other hand is not *true* or *false*, but rather *valid* if it has correct form and *invalid* if it has incorrect form. Furthermore an argument is *sound* if it is *valid* and all of its premises are *true*, and *unsound* otherwise. This is for deductive arguments. There are also arguments which are called inductive arguments. An inductive argument is *strong* if its premises make the conclusion likely, and it's *cogent* if it's both *strong* and all of its premises are *true*.https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inferencehttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKI1h_nAkaQq5MDWlKXu0jeZmLDt-51onforallx.openlogicproject.org
>>24938412>a proposition isn't an argument but a proposition derived from two or more propositions isriveting stuff. i disagree
>>24938417You know absolutely nothing about logic. I don't care at all about your uninformed speculative opinions. I'm just here to lecture you. I also don't care if you refuse to learn anything, that's your loss.
>>24938422>my beliefs are facts, yours are opinions!the eternal cry of the dogmatist
>>24938412>>24938422correct>>24938417>>24938431literally semantics
>>24938431I have studied logic. You haven't. You're uttering opinions about something you know nothing about. Proud asshole. Step one to learning anything is to humble yourself. Child. Stop masturbating.
>>24938468wrong>>24938469you have indoctrinated yourself with a set of weird beliefs that nobody else shares and that put you at odds with thousands of years of philosophical tradition>You're uttering opinions about something you know nothing about. i know its first principles and the ways in which it contradicts my first principles. that is enough.
>>24938417You're a fucking retard. You just don't know anything about elementary logic if you disagree with that.
Dumping some more stuff for other people than OP, he won't read anything.https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000003010372https://archive.org/details/elementsoflogic04whathttps://archive.org/details/easylessonsonrea00wha
>>24938474literally semantics
>>24938493Thanks anonI'm a Stirnerite Buddhist retard but I will read your suggested works on logic to relive my halcyon days when I fancied myself a thinker
>>24938492>UHMMMM ACCORDING TO MY DOGMA SAYING THAT SOMETHING IS X ISN'T AN ARGUMENT!!!i know what logic is, i just disagree with it. it is perfectly reasonable to argue without logic. it also suggests that someone who does not use logic cannot be argued with, which is ridiculous.>>24938497wrong>>24938504
>>24938512literally semantics
>>24938521wrong
>>24938523define "wrong"
>>24938538it means "i don't like you and i find you annoying and i cba to respond to you seriously"
>>24938549>literally semanticsliterally semantics
>>24938589wrong
>>24938598define "wrong"
>>24938617it means "i don't like you and i find you annoying and i cba to respond to you seriously"
>>24938022You're proudly ignorant of absolute basics and trying to justify remaining so based on kindergarten logic. The interesting thing about threads like this is thinking about how people get as fucked in the head as you. Do you have any ideas what caused this? Are you an adult "white" man?
>>24938620>literally semanticsliterally semantics
>>24938699>You're proudly ignorant of absolute basics"basics" that simply did not exist thousands of years ago. if you tried to pull any of this autist shit in athens you'd be expelled from the city like your precious aristotle
OP lost.
>>24938753nah, i gave a great argument here;>>24937707and then he stopped responding. the rest of the thread is just tards shitflinging
>>24938771define "great" and "argument"
>>24938787i would if you weren't the one asking
>>24938172>i would not need to support a claim if there wasn't a disagreement. one would not disagree if there wasn't someone supporting an alternative claim. as the two definitions are inseparable (one cannot be true without the other also being true), then where is the problem?No, they are not inseparable. You don't need any kind of disagreement for an argument (supporting a claim) to exist. You keep mixing these two things, and you don't even know what either actually means. I'm done. Read a book.
>>24938832>You don't need any kind of disagreement for an argument (supporting a claim) to exist.but what would the point of such an argument be, if there was no opposition to it as a mere proposition? why would it need to be "argued " with two supporting propositions that supposedly create it?>you don't even know what either actually means.nah you're just an autist who can't understand my point lol>I'm doneyou've been done several times and yet you keep coming back because you're an attention seeking dogmatist
>>24938826concession accepted
>>24938787holy fuck btfo
>>24938848premise 1: The food is sesame chicken or pepper beef.premise 2: The food is not pepper beef.Conclusion: Therefore, the food is sesame chicken.https://youtu.be/JBjAyrX7wms
>>24938889my concession that i hate you? ok>>24938891>yammer on with two word replies for an entire thread>expect me to type out paragraphs to argue with himyawn>>24938908why would it need to be called sesame chicken unless someone was calling it something else?
Daily reminder OP still lost
>>24938919>why would it need to be called sesame chicken unless someone was calling it something else?If you're not going to watch one minute of a video then yeah I'm not going to bother typing.
>>24938930ok that's your fault for not even understanding what the argument was and just typing out the slide. again, why would i need to know that the other container is full of sesame chicken unless it could be full of some other food like pepper beef?
water is not h20cross the border and it becomes akwa
>>24938938Once again you didn't even watch one minute.You aren't lifting the lid of the other container, so you don't see what's in it. You're INFERRING or DEDUCING that it must contain sesame chicken because the container in your hand contains pepper beef.Read https://www.juristpanel.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/A-Rulebook-for-Arguments_compressed.pdfand forallx.openlogicproject.organd watch https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKI1h_nAkaQq5MDWlKXu0jeZmLDt-51on
>>24938938>literal semantics
>>24938982>You aren't lifting the lid of the other container, so you don't see what's in it.where did i say lifting the lid?>You're INFERRING or DEDUCINGyou believe a proposition. you could just as easily believe the other container has sesame chicken without the other propositions or even opening the pepper beef container. besides, that's not my point. my point is why would the proposition "the other container has sesame chicken" MATTER unless there was some conflict-you don't want to eat sesame chicken, you want to eat sesame chicken, you want the container to contain something else, etc.
>>24938988Every time you give a REASON for believing in something or doing something you're giving an argument. There doesn't have to be a conflict. Plenty of arguments are just you thinking to yourself.premise: I never leave the bathroom door openpremise: the bathroom door is openconclusion: someone else must have been hereYou literally spent a full day in this thread. You could have read a book in that time, but no, just shitpost your life away.
>>24939009>Every time you give a REASON for believing in something or doing something you're giving an argument.that explicitly contradicts everything you've said ITT. you need TWO or MORE propositions to support ONE proposition.>conclusion: someone else must have been herein order for this to MATTER someone else having been there must be in conflict with something-i don't want other people in my house or whatever. if it did not MATTER you wouldn't think it, unless you were a retard
>>24936155Argument from strength
>>24939015>that explicitly contradicts everything you've said ITT. you need TWO or MORE propositions to support ONE proposition.Yeah, the premise is the reason for why you should believe the conclusion. As I said earlier, sometimes one premise is unstated, such an argument is called an enthymeme.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnthymemeAgain, this book talks about enthymemes early on:https://annas-archive.org/md5/5885cebb239fbd36f6c370d49c44018bAn unstated premise is also called an assumption. The word "assumption" here just means "something which is held to be true, but which is not stated", which is different from everyday usage of the word which is more like "something which is held to be true without evidence", that's not what it means in this context.https://youtu.be/yKwvZOj5I6ghttps://youtu.be/7XjWxfAH1MMA good way to learn logic is to do questions from the logical reasoning section of the LSAT, and google the questions you get wrong to read explanations and discussions. Picrel is one such question.Here are 90 free preptests: (just replace the number in the url)https://img.cracklsat.net/lsat/pt/pt1.pdf...https://img.cracklsat.net/lsat/pt/pt90.pdfThere are books you can read about the LSAT, such as:https://libgen.li/edition.php?id=146994744The playlist I posted earlier is about the LSAT logical reasoning section:https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeamyERJVQLDHH0zijOOpqULKD6yU2Uxehere's another introduction to logic book, unrelated to LSAThttps://courses.umass.edu/phil110-gmh/MAIN/IHome-5.htma good youtube channel, mostly about logichttps://www.youtube.com/@AmateurLogician/playlists
>>24939052then why not have a proposition where both premises are unstated
>>24939057Because an argument is REASONING. It's MOVEMENT. You go from one thing to another in the mind. You INFER, or DEDUCE. This is in contrast to a simple statement, which is not reasoning.argumentX ---> Ystatement/propositionXDid you even read this image?>>24937876pic here is higher resolution:>>24937815It's from here:https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt/page/n13/mode/2upaudio:https://archive.org/details/logick_2507_librivox
>>24939073>you can have a proposition with one unstated premise but not two because that's just how it is chudlogic is dogma>This is in contrast to a simple statement, which is not reasoning.an argument is not reasoning, it is a disagreement on a belief that one person holds and the other doesn't. you cannot argue with yourself. idc what your logician's dogma says at this point.
>arguments>semanticsYou just don’t get it. These things do not exist except as tools to further your own self interest. The question assumes there is some universal yardstick against which some interaction can be measured and determined to be “semantic” or “not semantic”. Again, no such thing exists.Whether an argument is trivial and semantic or factual and substantive depends on which stance benefits me the most at the moment.
