With varying degrees,... yes. This is often the case. I generally agree.
OK.
Here's where you start losing me. Because, while I agree far too many of these threads end up being completely focused on the semantics and what definitions apply,... one of the tactics used by all sides in a debate is to 'frame the debate.'
Absent a forum moderator, we (all parties involved) are supposedly free to frame the debate ourselves. Those opposed to abortion will frame it one way and those who want to keep it legal will frame it their way.
But the definitions of the words are what they are. They (the definitions) are static.
Correct?
No, Chuz, not correct. Definitions are not static. They are contextual. People can try to frame the debate, but they will frame the debate often mis-using definitions to gain an advantage. Problem is not trying to gain an advantage in debate, Problem is doing it dishonestly and/or with logical fallacies. Thing I like about debates is the providing of evidence, either through data or logic... or both. When you mis-use definitions, or misrepresent information, you muddy the debate with falsifications.
Putting a really crappy frame around a great picture, takes something away from the picture, Chuz.
As far as a forum moderator goes, are you trying to tell me that you all are incapable of monitoring yourselves?
So, (in theory) there should be less disagreement on what the words "mean" than there is about whether they are applicable or not.
But we see that's not the case... as neither side is willing to allow the otherside to frame the debate.
So, what's the solution?
I don't think there is one.
What the words mean
and their application are equally important. I another poster this in a thread that you participated in. Without context, words are meaningless.
Unless you are willing to provide a moderator for every debate, it's inevitable that each side will continue to try to frame the debate to their favor.
I don't completely agree. Some of the better debaters, IMO, do not do this, or at the very least, don't do it often. They do not need to. Evidence and logic is their ally.
I don't have a problem doing both at the same time.
Nor do I. I have an excellent command of the English language, and I doubt there are many here who could top me in a logic argument. But consider this. If you are discussing abortion, where is the debate? With abortion, or whether the word "murder" applies or not? The latter demeans your argument to nothing but semantics, and mis-use of semantics at that. You have to ask yourself, Chuz, why do you debate abortion? Is it to present your views? Is it to try to educate people on your position? Is it to convince people to be pro-life? If it is ANY of those things, the semantic argument, with the mis-use of words accomplishes NONE of them. Makes your position look weak and based on fallacies.
As I said before,... the definitions of the words are what they are.... and whether you and I agree is only relevant in one respect. There are countless others who read along and occasionally chime in as well. And because of that learning and such can take place even in the midst of a stalemate.
Chuz, when you mis-use words, the only people who listen are those on your side, already. You accomplish nothing in the way of learning.
There is nothing more clear and concise, factual and honest (in my opinion) than a dictionary. Flammable terminology is part of framing a political debate. these are emotionally charged issues REGARDLESS of how they are framed. And i fail to see how you can call it a diversion when in fact BOTH sides are interested in either banning abortion or keeping it legal.
It's a diversion when the debate digresses to defining murder. And again, without context, the dictionary is meaningless.
Neither side benefits in a diversion,.... other than when used to discourage the other.
I agree. And that's how these debates go.
That's been your choice,... not mine. I can't help it that you hit that wall every time you feel I am framing the debate to my advantage.
Why would I want to get into the meat of a debate with you, when all you want to do is equivocate words? There is no purpose to it. You're not framing it to your advantage. You are being dishonest in how you are communicating, effectively shutting down debate. You create the wall to stifle debate, Chuz.
Here's the deal CC,... you're right in that I don't know what your personal views are. But it's not for the reasons you think. And the proof is that "while the semantics discussion aggrevate you and might have hampered your ability to tell everyone what YOUR views are",.... I'll bet you have no question at all about what MINE are.
Now, why do you think that is?
Mostly because you do not seem interested in finding out, Chuz. You are so focused on mis-using words in an inciting fashion, that you seem completely uninterested in discussing someone's views. The only time that you DO seem interested, is when you are not focused on changing definitions. I've seen you do this on some rare occasions. At those times, you actually debate, decently. Most other times, you spend your posts absurdly redefining words. You hamper debate by refusing TO debate the issue.
So, you again have to ask yourself. Why do you debate this particular issue?
Watch it.
