I fucking hate semantics

Is this guy really putting the definition ahead of reality?

Definitions are inherently flawed

By design

Because that's how English works

No, they are just popularly attributed , the school of philosophy is just the thought exercises around the word.

Arguing them is the epitome of linguistic retardation

You misunderstand the whole basis of philosophy

point is, your source material there has fascinating and insightful philosophical questions such as "does altruism exist" and "does egoism exist" and it concludes that yes, it's alright to care about other people, and yes, sometimes you shouldn't be altruistic. how fucking wonderful. naturally many people have wasted years of study on just this wishy washy semantic bullshit to come to a common sense answer.

Using definitions in arguments is even a fallacy

It isn't.

Definitions are the basis of an argument. Words without meaning yields arguments without meaning.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Definition

Loo

Loo

@NinjaQuick They literally cannot be

<:WaitWhatArmy:590858815189024778>

THERE IS NO TRUTH

NOTHING IS REAL

NIHILISM EVERYWHERE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

ooh boy you've attracted nihilist thought

Except a word without meaning is just a series of sounds.

The only way a definition can be the premise of an argument is if you sit down prior to tue argument and agree on a specific definition

So you're fucking retarded. You're misusing the logical fallacy.

Anything else is fallacious

exactly

Just because it can be wrong doesn't mean it is always wrong.

You're really bad at thinking , phad.

It's always wrong

Absolutism is a position of small minds

The only time it's acceptable is if the other person specifically agrees to it

That sounds less like an argument and more like communism.

<:spurdo:500782204788670474>

An appeal to definition is not the same as the basis of language which is common understanding of the meaning of a word.

I didn't say it was

Appeal to definition is pretending a definition can be a premise of an argument

Your stance of demanding that Eden abide by your definition of altruism is an example of appeal to definition.

definitions should be obvious to each participant beforehand, and if they are not, should only be resolved in favour of one participant. if the definition proposed is meaningless or simply not commonly accepted, the participant is thrown from a cliff. that's how fucking mad I am at semantics ruining the fields of academia that should've saved the last few decades.

It almost never can be

Whereas the group here agree with the common vernacular