Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: in-tree pristines fatally wounded (merge-fest etc)

[Samuel A. Falvo II]

On Sunday 07 December 2003 12:12 am, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> That depends on your definition of society.  If Tom can redefine
> "fascism" to suit himself, why can't I use a definition of "society"
> that suits the needs of discussion as I see it?

I generally try to stay out of bickering like this, but I feel it is 
important to respond to this particular question.

As soon as even *one* member of the party starts morphing critical 
definitions to suit their particular needs, without stating the 
presumptions behind the change, the whole argument becomes nonsensical.  
A logical argument depends entirely on having a consistent and 
well-known vocabulary between all parties.

A: The apple is red!

B: No -- the apple is a fruit!!

Clearly, A and B are both talking about apples; but their interpretation 
of the word differs to the point where the argument just falls apart 
into a cacophony of baud-noise.

I hope this helps explain my reasons for why those engaged in a logical 
argument cannot just arbitrarily re-adjust critical definitions without 
making the action obvious or explicit.

--
Samuel A. Falvo II