Definitions: A Little Experiment

[Juliette]

I've noticed that every single debate or divisive discussion I have ever been in eventually deteriorates into arguments of definitions. These disagreements in semantics make me wonder if people on opposite sides of issues are even speaking the same language.

One might argue that we should go with the dictionary definition, but of course, different dictionaries have different definitions, and there is often more than one meaning tied to a word in even a single dictionary. And then some people simply reject the dictionary definition.

All this is further confounded by connotation which is the "attitudes and feelings" associated with words. So in a way, every individual has their own unique language.

So as a bit of an experiment, I want to see how different definitions between individuals can be, especially on words that are commonly disagreed on.

Here are the rules.
1. Please do not use dictionaries, Wiki, articles, etc. to copy or craft a definition.
2. Do not read other posts before posting your own definitions and please do not edit your post after you have read other posts.
3. Simply post a definition as if you were asked on the spot in a conversation.
4. Please make your definitions as concise and specific as possible.

Here are the words to define.

Natural
Ideal
Rights
Family
Equality
Marriage
Tolerance
Freedom

[[KMA]Avenger]

erm, slightly off topic but, isn't it better to stop over complicating things and debate a subject as its intended to be debated rather than breaking down and scrutinizing every word till the debate resembles something not intended?

[Juliette]

erm, slightly off topic but, isn't it better to stop over complicating things and debate a subject as its intended to be debated rather than breaking down and scrutinizing every word till the debate resembles something not intended?

Words are the atomic unit of any debate.
If your 'atoms' are different from mine, how am I supposed to understand your 'molecule'?
Since understanding makes up the core of a debate, how are we supposed to debate, to 'react' as it were if I do not understand your 'molecule'? It will be nothing but a passing by of ideas, unexplained, misunderstood and pointless.




For crying out loud.. Humour me?

[semper]

Not at all Avenger.

The Meaning of words is normally the source of a lot of problems. Where as human rights to you may be the right to life and the right to free will. I do not believe in free will and certainly do not believe all humans deserve to live and have equal lives. Even then our ideas of these could well still be completely different to the perceived definitions our governments and peers have.

I will rely to this after my lecture.

[n3M351s]

There could be many meanings for these words depending on their application. I'm going for the ones that first come to mind.

Natural
In its organic state of creation; unaltered, untouched.

Ideal
The way one interprets the way things should be.

Rights
The conditions that govern a person or people.

Family
People who are related through bloodline or marriage.

Equality
Being equal.

Marriage
A sacred union between a man and a woman.

Tolerance
Having the ability to endure a hardship or annoyance.

Freedom
Having independence from everyone and everything.

[Cole]

Natural: Something that didn't get work or labour from humans involved. Didn't get modify by it.

Ideal: What is the best according to someone, what would be the most pleasant to live in/with. In example, an ideal society would be one where there are no crimes, and where noone is threatend or manipulated/spied, it would be "perfect" not because they are threatened to act so, but because it's in their nature. =/= The kind of world where everyone smiles, and whenever someone isn't smiling or being happy (it's a metaphor), is terminated by some superior power (in examples, chips in your head)

Rights: What we are allowed in return of respecting the laws. It means we are respected for what we do, and what we are. We aren't considered like tools, hence are allowed to do/have things as long as we behave well. For example, human rights. If they were to be cancelled, humanity would be considered like tools, and life would become total opposite of ideal society. There would have only two possible choices. Kill yourself, or fight and rebel against the tyrans who are anti-democracy. Destroy the darkness, ignorance and absolutism from those tyrnas to restaur the democracy would be the proper goal for those who choose to fight.

Family: People we are linked with by blood, in a large and generic sense. On some cases, we can consider friends as being part of family, but it's not recognized by law, unlike for blood links.
People we usually learn from, and appreciate. The social framework we grow into and learn to live in society, in a less generic defining. A group that you usually trust, love, help(...) more than other people.

Equality: Something that gives everyone the same thing, regardless of if they deserve it or not. A wrong concept sadly. Better concept is equity, where you are rewarded for what you do, you'll get more if you deserve it more, get less if you deserve less and so on.

Marriage: A link between a man and a woman. It's a law link, a love link, and much more. It's the ultimate proof of loving someone, you are linked with that person until end of your life to live in happiness..in best rare cases, most of times divorce comes in because love is gone. Or, sadly, still in many cases around the world, forced marriages, to get linked with a person from another family for selfish interests by parents of married ones. It looses all its good sense(s) then. And *must* be condemned by law in my opinion.

Tolerance: Allowing something from someone. Like an attitude. It's also mainly linked with other cultures, dogms and religions respect. To accept that the other doesn't believe, act or think the same as you do. Tolerance has its limits though. When other person's beliefs/acts break laws/human rights, tolerance *has* to stop. Tolerance is limited as long as others' way to act or think isn't hurting others' freedom, as long as those people are not people who themselves broke laws/human rights. Then exceptions can be done in those cases. What I mean is, we can't be tolerant to terrorism for example. However, if it's terrorism like freedom fighters in a tyranic dictatorship breaking freedoms and human rights, it will be supported by other people from outside. It just depends if you hurt the good ones, or the bad ones.

Freedom: What allows you to live your life as you wish. Freedom, however, is limitated to laws and human rights, you can't have freedom to do anything you want. If it breaks someone else's freedom, you loose your freedom to act so. Also it's the opposite of being commanded like a brainless tool, by a superior power who autoproclaimed themselves "rulers" of your life. Freedom is something very important. Hence why many many people gave up their life for freedom in history. It's one of best things that humanity has, and what makes us be civilized and not stupid emotionless creatures addicted to ultimate power. It's the opposite of slavery, where a group of people proclaim that they are superior to another group, and decide that this group *has* to work for them without wage or any freedom, because "they decided so", mostly based on rediculous and nonsense reasons, such as "there are superior and inferior races". Which only stupid people can believe, since it has been proven by science we are all the same race.

Generic and "objective" definitions in red, my comments towards recent topics in white.

[[KMA]Avenger]

i'm sorry Lois/Semper, i cant agree with you...

as a wise man once said...if you can't mean what you say then you can't say what you mean

i personally say EXACTLY what i mean to say, so no debate on my meaning is ever necessary, all you have to do is read and take it in

[Juliette]

i'm sorry Lois/Semper, i cant agree with you...

as a wise man once said...if you can't mean what you say then you can't say what you mean

i personally say EXACTLY what i mean to say, so no debate on my meaning is ever necessary, all you have to do is read and take it in

Sure.. but how can you think your audience will just pick up exactly what you have to say? Language is imprecise. Especially when the debate has multiple levels of complexity, as most debates do.
Of course, defining yourself clearly is something foul for those who wish to subtly impress their ideas upon their peers.. propagandists, conspirationists, and other people who use debate to serve their own agenda instead of pursuing the logical goal of understanding.

You expect me to read your words and I will innately know what you mean? Hardly. As you can see from those who have humoured the thread topic, there are multiple versions of definitions. Sure, most will be similar or even the same at first glance, but deeper analysis reveals great and essential differences on far more fundamental levels.


Anyway.. what have you got to lose? Surely it cannot be so hard to show us what you define the listed terms as?
Please, I pray thee, tell.

[Cole]

I defined the words so now everyone know where I stand. I stand on the right side. (not right wing necessarly, I mean, right side opposited to wrong)
You should do it too avenger.

[semper]

i'm sorry Lois/Semper, i cant agree with you...

as a wise man once said...if you can't mean what you say then you can't say what you mean

i personally say EXACTLY what i mean to say, so no debate on my meaning is ever necessary, all you have to do is read and take it in

Sure.. but how can you think your audience will just pick up exactly what you have to say? Language is imprecise. Especially when the debate has multiple levels of complexity, as most debates do.
Of course, defining yourself clearly is something foul for those who wish to subtly impress their ideas upon their peers.. propagandists, conspirationists, and other people who use debate to serve their own agenda instead of pursuing the logical goal of understanding.

You expect me to read your words and I will innately know what you mean? Hardly. As you can see from those who have humoured the thread topic, there are multiple versions of definitions. Sure, most will be similar or even the same at first glance, but deeper analysis reveals great and essential differences on far more fundamental levels.


Anyway.. what have you got to lose? Surely it cannot be so hard to show us what you define the listed terms as?
Please, I pray thee, tell.

excellently put. I have said it before and will say it again. Ludwig Wittgenstein. He said there is a rhino in this room, and I say there is on typing on this forum! lol.

As for definitions, to help us prove more than one point!....
Natural - Not manipulated by society or by technology for the benefits of sentient beings. Pure, not corrupt. I would go to say as choices made through free will and like wise actions that come about because of such, but I do not believe in such a thing...

Ideal - Optimum/desired imagined potential. NOT necessarily the best possible...limits of human imagination and all...

Rights - (Very complicated one..) A Romantic notion/Beliefs made by society dictating how a sentient being is entitled to be treated and what they are allowed to accomplish/act like within society through their own means without causing unacceptable negative effects, which are, once again determined by society and psychology. (after all, no being has 'rights' within natural law as they would commonly be conceived, other than those pertaining to their physical and mental attributes((abilities)) within certain environments. You cannot sue a plant for growing into your home and causing structural damage, and a tiger will not hesitate to slaughter you for entering its territory because of the value of life...)...
....also a direction said in an unusual way...

Family - word made to signify a social loyalty commonly made of blood relatives, extending from the basic belief to preserve ones own genes and the human race, the natural order and all that...Humanities ignorance/arrogance, a way to show alliances etc etc... A word used to symbolise a closer than 'normal' accepted level of relationship. A label to show/bestow importance. (Take your pick!) I would change it depending on the circumstance. (Ie, my mum and sister are family through blood, whilst as The Iron duke and Tyber Zann are family through being stupidly good friends for many many years..)

Equality - An imaginary concept made to avoid confrontation.

Marriage - The joining of things, whether 'before god' or not.

Tolerance - once ability to accept. Mental or physical endurance through 'choice' (assuming it does exist).

Freedom - An imaginary concept used many times to either avoid confrontation, avoid terrible truths, or to justify illogical actions and choices.

@ Jim..lol.

[Cole]

Well Semper, it was meaning, that what I say in my posts isn't "roleplay". I say what I think about things. Because we all know this game (and forums) have many roleplay dimensions. Usually, few exceptions aside, I mean what I say, or if you prefer, I think what I say. Because in debates, you sometimes get to pick a side that isn't yours because randomness of choices said so, you have to work on the arguments, and despite the fact it's not your opinion, you have to defend it. In example, a lawyer defending a criminal. Lawyer doesn't necessarly believes what (s)he says, but (s)he has to do it because it's required from him/her to do so.

Anyway, I've came to the conclusion that debates in those forums are completly useless. Both sides think they are right and don't want to listen to the other one, who is wrong according to them. Narrow minded people..
Even in the debate of McCain vs Obama they were both agreeing on some facts.

[[KMA]Avenger]

Anyway.. what have you got to lose? Surely it cannot be so hard to show us what you define the listed terms as?
Please, I pray thee, tell.

firstly, how can i define those words if there is no context with which to define them?

i mean, they just look like randomly selected words and you ask us our definition of them...

if you just want a definition of the words then the definition of those words as listed in the dictionary's is my response...

unless you want me to define them in context to a statement or posting of yours then i would first have to read them in a sentence to define them...follow me?

as i said earlier...if you cant say what you mean then you cant mean what you say

[Oculus Sinister]

Avenger, my (somewhat irrelevant) perception of the question is that the value of your answers lies in the association you make. This is illustrated by the word 'ideal' which can be both an ideal (noun) and ideal (adjective).
The fact that you refuse to humour the author of this thread by simply doing what most have done so far, and in fact your denial of the sense this thread has can be classed as spam without reaching.



Natural
As it would be without human intervention of any kind, except the act of human procreation. (Please note: This exemption is required to prevent humans being wholly unnatural themselves.)

Ideal
A construct of the human mind to specify a situation in which there is no opportunity for change without diminishing the perfection of the situation.

Rights
Moral constructs by which humanity obligates their authorities to provide them with certain privileges or, as they have become known as, 'needs'.

Family
A group of people bound by their identical genetic ancestry. Also used as: "A group of people bound by shared ideas/experiences/etcetera."

Equality


Marriage


Tolerance


Freedom



*Note: Will add more when more time.

[[KMA]Avenger]

personally, i prefer to be simplistic in my meanings, she asks for my definition...the definitions in the dictionary serve me just fine

so, thats my response to the authors request for my definition of the words

on a side note, people need to stop over complicating things, doesn't have to be like that

[TheWay]

If you want to be honest about this you are discussing the wrong words and issues. If we are to honestly address the declining place and value of debate we must ask tough questions and deal with difficult words.

1. Pluralism VS Tolerance- this is a fun issue, hot one also

2. Political Correctness VS Honest Debate- Why can’t we talk about things that seem wrong and question things that may be taboo, and I don’t just mean the normal morally enept position of let’s talk about porn I mean real issues. Those of you who know understand what I am saying.

3. Modernity Vs Post Modernity

4. Absolute Truth VS Relativism - matter a fact each one of these words could be a discussion in and of themselves let alone as a comparison.

5. Inclusivity vs Exclusivity- this presents all kinds of emotional land minds lol

6. Personal Experience VS Fact or Knowledge from within VS knowledge gained from outside sources

7. The definition of knowing and what the parameters of knowledge are.

I am sure there are bunches more but I think I caught the major culprits that are attempting to squash open and honest debate.

In all honesty though I would be afraid to debate most of these because most people are not able to look past rhetoric and actually have an honest and real thought. People simply spout off what they are told and most of it is post modern politically correct nonsense




@Oculus Sinister's definition of the word
Natural
As it would be without human intervention of any kind, except the act of human procreation. (Please note: This exemption is required to prevent humans being wholly unnatural themselves.

Your definition is a bandwagon fallacy to be specific it is argumentum ad populum

You make a perfectly decent definition for the word in question and then completely deny the definition in the very next statement possibly for the purpose of supporting a world view, possibly the idea that homosexuality is not unnatural. Let me be clear it is possible I misunderstood your previous statement as it wasn’t completely clear and I am not making an argument for or against homosexuality (although if that where the topic I would be more than happy to discuss it). This type of illogical argument if I understood you correctly is what is ruining the system of debate we have had in place for so long it is post modernism at its worst. If I haven’t understood you correctly I apologize profusely and ask that my post be taken in the context of the real case where this type of behavior is used in word usage.

Just for [KMA]Avenger, I will make this simple if the definition of natural is; Conforming with nature: in accordance with the usual course of nature

Then you would have to conclude that Homosexuality is not natural

This by the way is why this discussion is important to debate because as the definition of a word changes so does the implications of the argument and the validity of ones reasoning; I hope that was fairly simple.

Also I do understand your point though Avenger much of this can seem trivial and indeed it is, but so goes the forum of honest debate.

P.S. if anyone thinks this is bad imagine arguing with Plato about the Theory of forms, if you aren’t familiar I dare you to look it up it’s very hilarious.

Natural- The idea that something is as it was made to be. Ex. Organic Food
Ideals- values that one holds and acts on when prompted
Rights- Freedoms granted to a person by a higher power then themselves. Ex Rights of a U.S. citizen granted by government but through way of a biblical principle that is reflected in our constitution.
Family- a unit of structure based on principles of culture or religion.
Equality- Is the ability for all to share the same basic freedoms. Ex the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Marriage- The bond between a man and a women that expresses commitment and love till death do them part. This of course is a issue of world view rather than definition as the legal definition in some places is different
Tolerance – the ability for people to old opposing views and yet still respect each other, while at the same time believing the other to be completely wrong.
Freedom- The ability to be free in a limited sense. No one is able to be completely free because no matter what we are all slaves to our basic needs. This is why the constitution does not dictate freedom alone but it details certain freedoms that man is entitled to based off of certain ideals and principles.