capitalism = natural selection

[Darus Grey]

ok then, you're confirming that you didn't have a rebuttal. thanks.

Oh you.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

seriously dude, you said that

The majority is the one who are constantly expressing the arbitrariness(which is why language changes every second), Individuals can too.

Words are not attached to their form, so there is never a "correct" definition...there's only different levels of consensus.

alongside the fact that 99%+ of language is NON-LITERAL.

if this were the case neither of us would understand what the fuck each other was talking about and we would just be talking in circles.

oh wow haha that just happened

[Darus Grey]

if this were the case neither of us would understand what the fuck each other was talking about and we would just be talking in circles.

What you are failing to grasp, is that is exactly how it works.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

http://www.digitalbusstop.com/wp-con...y-think-in.jpg

[Darus Grey]

Your argument is that since you don't understand it, it thus cannot be that way.

You may have better luck in a religion thread.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

ah resorting to your home turfs tactic of insults as a last resort to a loss. I fuckin miss GD sometimes man, thank you

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

all the perks with none of the travel, you're a swell guy

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I mean here you are using language you expect me to understand to explain your position that language is arbitrary and unreliable

[Rocl]

are you arguing with the guy who parades around the fact he's mentally retarded

oh wait that guy isn't max tm FUCK

[Shiroikage]

goddamn max teem

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

no that was good because basically the argument is that the definitions of words we use to communicate with each other are retarded

[Kuya]

It is only natural that any debate always end up as sementricks.

[Darus Grey]

ah resorting to your home turfs tactic of insults as a last resort to a loss. I fuckin miss GD sometimes man, thank you

Actually I'm still holding my ultimate trump card.

Spoiler: show

Fact that I'm correct

Spoiler: show

Arbitrary symbols

A key property of language is that its symbols are strongly arbitrary.[5] Any concept or grammatical rule can be mapped onto a symbol. In other words, most languages make use of sound, but the combinations of sounds used do not have any necessary and inherent meaning; they are merely an agreed-upon convention to represent a certain thing by users of that language. For instance, the sound combination nada carries the meaning of "nothing" in the Spanish language and also the meaning "thread" in the Hindi language. There is nothing about the word nada itself that forces Hindi speakers to convey the idea of "thread", or the idea of "nothing" for Spanish speakers. Other sets of sounds (for example, the English words nothing and thread) could equally be used to represent the same concepts, but all Spanish and Hindi speakers have acquired or learned to correlate their own meanings for this particular sound pattern. Indeed, for speakers of Slovene and some other South Slavic languages, the sound combination carries the meaning of "hope", while in Indonesian, it means "tone".
This arbitrariness applies to words even with an onomatopoetic dimension (i.e. words that to some extent simulate the sound of the token referred to). For example, several animal names (e.g. cuckoo, whip-poor-will, and katydid) are derived from sounds made by the respective animal, but these forms did not have to be chosen for these meanings. Non-onomatopoetic words can stand just as easily for the same meaning. For instance, the katydid is called a "bush cricket" in British English, a term that bears no relation to the sound made by the animal. In time, onomatopoetic words can also change in form, losing their mimetic status. Onomatopoetic words may have an inherent relation to their referent, but this meaning is not inherent; thus they do not violate arbitrariness. For instance, an English speaker may describe a dog's bark as "ruff" or "bow-wow," as to where the Japanese would describe it as "wan-wan."
[edit] Related symbols

The meanings of signs may be arbitrary, but the process of assigning meaning is not; it is the activity of the entire society; individuals are not allowed to change them arbitrarily, even though they may contribute some new meanings. A continuous thread of socially recognized meaning requires that the allowed meanings of individual signs be related. The relatedness of signs was formally recognized by Charles W. Morris, who divided semiotics into three fields, based on "the three dimensions of semiosis:"[6]

"...syntactics studies the relation between a given sign vehicle and other sign vehicles, semantics studies the relations between sign vehicles and their designata, and pragmatics studies the relation between sign vehicles and their interpreters....

These types of relatedness allow a finite set of signs to be combined into a potentially infinite number of meaningful utterances.

That is to say, society defines a general set of uses in which they consciously or subconsciously agree to, but they are ultimately arbitrary.

Within the context of a SINGLE conversation, or a small group of individuals, the burden is much lower, this is the basis of SLANG, where the context of the conversation influences the burden upon which there is semantic allowance.

As I pointed out, this also happens EXTENSIVELY in politics. In-fact the 1990s attempt by the republicans is FAMOUS. They made a purposeful effort to re-define democrats(Liberal, Socialist, Communist, etc) and it WORKED. A VERY small number of people influenced the entire nation.

It's also a common debate tactic, visa via this thread, to set out with a different definition of the topic, argue about it, and then clarify your position, thus re-defining it, and giving yourself all the power, as your opponent was prepared for a different conversation.

Language, ultimately IS ARBITRARY.

Fact that we can still comprehend each other is simply testament to the amazing processing power of the human brain, not that this arbitrariness does not exist.

Spoiler: show

Made you look, lol

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

the debate started that way lol

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Actually I'm still holding my ultimate trump card.

Spoiler: show

Fact that I'm correct

Spoiler: show

That is to say, society defines a general set of uses in which they consciously or subconsciously agree to, but they are ultimately arbitrary.

Within the context of a SINGLE conversation, or a small group of individuals, the burden is much lower, this is the basis of SLANG, where the context of the conversation influences the burden upon which there is semantic allowance.

As I pointed out, this also happens EXTENSIVELY in politics. In-fact the 1990s attempt by the republicans is FAMOUS. They made a purposeful effort to re-define democrats(Liberal, Socialist, Communist, etc) and it WORKED. A VERY small number of people influenced the entire nation.

It's also a common debate tactic, visa via this thread, to set out with a different definition of the topic, argue about it, and then clarify your position, thus re-defining it, and giving yourself all the power, as your opponent was prepared for a different conversation.

Language, ultimately IS ARBITRARY.

Fact that we can still comprehend each other is simply testament to the amazing processing power of the human brain, not that this arbitrariness does not exist.

Spoiler: show

Made you look, lol

Right, you pointed to the majority understanding a word in its current form. Did you read the whole capitalize / socialize pisstake me and TSM had?

Also, you're using an adjective as the crutch of your argument which makes your point moot. As time moves forward the platform of that specific word will always change as our understanding of society is altered through its own evolution.

No one can change the definition of an object or a system because, by definition, they define themselves.

Spoiler: show

how awesome was this sentence?

A car will always be a car, a cloud will always be a cloud, and capitalism will always be capitalism. Attaching an emotion or concept after the fact does not change the base definition or verbal understanding of the word, it just means you threw something against the wall and hoped it stuck.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

also, I'm still laughing pretty hard at you telling me I didn't understand your argument in this thread

[Darus Grey]

A car will always be a car, a cloud will always be a cloud, and capitalism will always be capitalism.

It's ok, I'm laughing with you.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I know, because you can't give an example where someone successfully persuaded the populace to understand those words by any other definition.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Of course the most awesome irony of this debate is you accusing me of taking definitions too literally. I understand that the actual word may change, but the concept of an object or system and its definition never will, because if it is it becomes something else entirely.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

And in the end we're both ultimately wrong because I'm standing here redefining your definition of definitions.


How's that for a mindfuck?