Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 307
  1. #261
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have to say, when you say things like this, it totally discredits your point of view as so distorted that it can not recognize the obvious.
    but.. to give you the benefit of the doubt. ..

    What is languages primary purpose then?


    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/language

    .... basically your statement is false evidences above.
    Um, that's pretty much my definition. I think you are confusing the medium of communication with the agents doing the communicating. Language doesn't do the actual communicating - the communicating is done via the sender and receiver of a message; the message can be encoded in any form but the form we are concerned with is 'language'.

    It is vital to understand the difference in order to understand the rest of my argument, and why 'church' doesn't convey anything - it's an historical artifact whose modern senders and receivers only understand with meta-information.

    LET THE SPIN BEGIN!
    Woosh! Don't claim victory so quickly unless you understand what is being discussed. Miriam-Webster doesn't quite capture it but the OED does:
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...lish/language:

    The method of humancommunication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of wordsin a structured and conventional way:

    The system of communication used by a particular community or country:
    the book was translated into twenty-five languages
    So a language is a 'system' or a 'method' of communication. Communication is:

    I hope that helps but you should read the rest of the explanation before you claim victory.

  2. #262
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,242
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I think you are confusing the medium of communication with the agents doing the communicating
    How so, and why?

    Quote Originally Posted by jj
    So a language is a 'system' or a 'method' of communication. Communication is:
    Sooooo.. that means that is it's point.. riiiight?
    The point of the method of language is to "communicate". Ie exactly what you said it wasn't, and in direct contradiction to what you said.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I hope that helps but you should read the rest of the explanation before you claim victory.
    I claimed no victory... only predicted the future.
    by all means.. do continue.
    It's a very simple concept and your blindness to it infects your entire view. If two people who rarely agree on anything (mican and myself) and who have fundamental disagreements in the thread, both agree and that doesn't tip you off or cause you pause or to re-think your understanding of something very basic.. then what hope is there that you will ever do such a thing?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  3. #263
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    How so, and why?
    How? By using the same word for different things? Even after two definitions!
    Why? Because you wish to win a minor point. Note, this really doesn't have any impact on my own arguments anyway - Mican has taken on the role of having to support his point. My own points still stand and are as yet undefeated.


    Sooooo.. that means that is it's point.. riiiight?
    The point of the method of language is to "communicate". Ie exactly what you said it wasn't, and in direct contradiction to what you said.
    No, the point of language is to facilitate communication. Language doesn't 'communicate' per se. It is the two humans on either side of the message. Language is the thing that we use to communicate with. Two people communication.

    I claimed no victory... only predicted the future.
    by all means.. do continue.
    Meh, you've not won a single point in this thread so far. You didn't defend the story of the girl showing Christian Persecution Complex at all but focused on some minor literal dictionary definition of 'debunk' - hardly the main point; you failed to defend yourself on the point of appealing to tradition to defend the continued use of Christian terms and claimed a weird victory over a point that I have already been consistent on and now you are using your impreciseness in this understanding the elements of communication. You're heading towards a hat-trick of no victory. If you'd stop gloating over a victory you don't have yet then it would make the rest of the debate run a little more smoothly.


    It's a very simple concept and your blindness to it infects your entire view. If two people who rarely agree on anything (mican and myself) and who have fundamental disagreements in the thread, both agree and that doesn't tip you off or cause you pause or to re-think your understanding of something very basic.. then what hope is there that you will ever do such a thing?
    Or, drumroll ... there might exist a third point of view! Amazing as it sounds, that is indeed entirely possible. You're both packing a lot of ideas into this single word 'communicate' and until it is properly unpacked into the components they really are you're not going to know where 'meaning' really belongs. But the point is that even if I mash everything together clumsily like you're both doing, I still disagree - the only way I could concede on this point is if I take an imprecise view of dictionary definitions, mash them together and pretend they all mean what I want them to mean. Which appears what you're doing, even though we've gone around once and two definitions to show that you're wrong.

    Note that Mican agrees removing God, a Christian deity, from our secular government; he just thinks that removing 'church' is going one step too far. So by your reasoning, you must also agree that we should remove God from our pledge and our currency. Correct? Being right is down to a majority? Is that what you're proposing with this?

    Besides, this is Mican taking on the onus to defend 'church' in 'church and state'. My points still stand until they haven't been defeated yet. Even if you both win this point, they have little impact on my points.

  4. #264
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    353
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones
    My own points still stand and are as yet undefeated.
    What are your points? I ask because it is so difficult to decode your arguments as they are rife with red herrings, straw men, bare assertions, demonstrably incorrect assumptions regarding the nature of your opponents' arguments and a disturbing amount of hubris. So again, what are your points, as I'm fairly certain most--if not all--have already been answered to some extent.

    *Just to be extra clear about what I'm looking for: It needs to be a list not an essay.

  5. #265
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    What are your points? I ask because it is so difficult to decode your arguments as they are rife with red herrings, straw men, bare assertions, demonstrably incorrect assumptions regarding the nature of your opponents' arguments and a disturbing amount of hubris. So again, what are your points, as I'm fairly certain most--if not all--have already been answered to some extent.

    *Just to be extra clear about what I'm looking for: It needs to be a list not an essay.
    Your vague post is a bit meaningless unless you have something in particular you feel strongly about.

    Pick one point you feel that is poorly defended and we can discuss it. The OP still stands if you want to start somewhere.

    Or if you want to discuss church and state, I enumerated my arguments about 5 or 6 posts ago

  6. #266
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    353
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones
    Pick one point
    I'll ask again: What are these "points" that you have claimed are "as [of] yet undefeated"?

  7. #267
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    I'll ask again: What are these "points" that you have claimed are "as [of] yet undefeated"?
    Consider the point withdrawn then.

  8. #268
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,242
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I think you are confusing the medium of communication with the agents doing the communicating
    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    How so
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    How? By using the same word for different things?
    You are not being very clear in your explanation here. I have no clue where I have done this in relation to what we are currently discussing.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Why? Because you wish to win a minor point
    So, you think I have confused it the medium of communication, with the agents doing the communication, and you took my question of "how so and why", as being a question pointed at your understanding of my personal motivation?
    That is truly mind-boggling to me. I have no interest in what your perception of my motivations, I want to know your perception of how and why something makes sense to you the way it does.

    ... of course, it occurs to me that you think that I confused it not because of anything I have said per say, but because you believe my motivations are not proper... which is a logical fallacy.
    Either way, Try to explain yourself a little more clearly, and with as few assumptions as possible or at least state the relevant assumptions.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  9. #269
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are not being very clear in your explanation here. I have no clue where I have done this in relation to what we are currently discussing.


    So, you think I have confused it the medium of communication, with the agents doing the communication, and you took my question of "how so and why", as being a question pointed at your understanding of my personal motivation?
    That is truly mind-boggling to me. I have no interest in what your perception of my motivations, I want to know your perception of how and why something makes sense to you the way it does.

    ... of course, it occurs to me that you think that I confused it not because of anything I have said per say, but because you believe my motivations are not proper... which is a logical fallacy.
    Either way, Try to explain yourself a little more clearly, and with as few assumptions as possible or at least state the relevant assumptions.
    So now that we are on the same page. Do you agree with my points and my objections to saying that the primary purpose of language is to communicate?

  10. #270
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,242
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So now that we are on the same page.
    How are we on the same page? I am asking you to explain one of your objections.. how in the world do you translate that into being on the same page?
    You seem too eager to jump to the rhetoric and avoid actual engaging in the debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Do you agree with my points and my objections to saying that the primary purpose of language is to communicate?
    Not at all, as far as I'm concerned unless you can explain your objection and defend it then my point stands. (due to lack of a coherent objection).
    What I am specifically asking you for is to explain a very specific objection you have forwarded.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  11. #271
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    How are we on the same page? I am asking you to explain one of your objections.. how in the world do you translate that into being on the same page?
    You seem too eager to jump to the rhetoric and avoid actual engaging in the debate.


    Not at all, as far as I'm concerned unless you can explain your objection and defend it then my point stands. (due to lack of a coherent objection).
    What I am specifically asking you for is to explain a very specific objection you have forwarded.
    Specially, what is the exact question you want an answer to or where is my explanation incomplete

  12. #272
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,653
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    No again. The primary purpose of language is not to communicate - communication requires both a sender and receiver -- language is the medium of communication. It is the most inactive part of 'communication' - you have it entirely wrong!
    How on Earth is that a rebuttal? If anything, it shores up my point. I mean if language is a medium of communication then is stands to reason that the primary purpose of language is to communicate.

    If you are going to rebut that point you have to either show that:
    1. The primary purpose of language is something other than communication
    2. There is no primary purpose to language.

    Your response does neither

    And of course you have a third option

    3. Ask me to support or retract my point (and to be clear, that's perfectly acceptable to me).

    Unless you do one of those three things you have not rebutted my point and it stands until it is rebutted.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    This is just a pointless point: it's obvious that a phrase that is currently being used is currently being used - that's all you're really saying. That's no reason not to try to change or find another phrase that covers the new requirements more precisely
    I don't see how you can claim that that's all I'm really saying when point 2 CLEARLY says more than that. Here it is again:

    "2. SOCAT is the most effective term in communicating TEC due to it's common acceptance in our society."

    And I think it's pretty clear that the most effective term in communicating something is a very, very good reason to use it above all other alternatives. Of course you can argue that there are more important considerations that make an alternative term, or no term at all, better than SOCAT. But to say that point 2 doesn't provide a reason seems like a serious misreading of it.

    But when it comes to a logic chain, the only issue regarding points is whether they are correct or not. So "your point is pointless" doesn't rebut it. Whether it's pointless or not, if it's true then you should move on to the next point.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    You did make it clear - I was bored. Secondly, to say that you have an odd view isn't being rude, it was my way of saying that you are totally wrong. I hope I clarified why above.
    Well, can you think of a way of saying that someone's argument is wrong without commenting about them personally? If so, then there's no reason to make personal comments about someone and to do so is unnecessarily rude.

    If I disagree with your argument, I will say that your argument is wrong. I won't say "You have no idea what you are talking about" because while that may attack your argument, it also says something unflattering about you, which is rude. Likewise your comment that I have an odd view is an unflattering comment about me personally.

    In short, just attack the argument. Negative comments about the person is rude.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I assumed that you could look back 3 posts!
    I could look at that post but since there are no flawed arguments there, I wouldn't be able to find one. That's why I ask you to present the argument you think is flawed.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    You are appealing to the history of the phrase in order to support its current usage.
    I see the reference to historical significance but I didn't use that significance as a reason to continue using SOCAT. So I did not engage in the appeal to history fallacy.

    If you are going to argue otherwise, then please identify where in that quote I said something along the lines of "therefore we should continue using SOCAT".

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    We're talking about words and phrases which can and do change. And you need to support that it is "overall the best thing you can find" - all you have said is that it in common usage, which is really poor support for not changing anything.
    That does not rebut my rebuttal of your argument. So my argument that imperfection does not necessarily mean that a change should or can happen stands.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    That seems to be the main reason why you accept the current phrase and why you'd reject a new one: that it is in popular use. Again, this is a terrible reason not to change something and largely boils down to why you'd accept/reject it. It is NOT a reason not to change it.
    Let me state clearly the main reason why I accept the current phrase. I want to continue to use SOCAT because it is the most effective phrase available for communication TEC. Any statement that my argument is primarily something else is a misstatement of my position. There are other arguments that support my primary arguments but THAT is my argument.




    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    And people can still use the old phrase too - it doesn't entirely disappear but it will sound more anachronistic and inaccurate and exclusionary.
    But you said the new phrase replaced the old phrase. It did not. They both exist and they even mean very different things. But this is all besides the main point so we can drop it.



    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    And the people have decided that using 'church' is inappropriate and inaccurate and non-precise and exclusionary.
    Not when used in SOCAT. I'm only aware of ONE, just ONE, person who feels that SOCAT's use of "Church" is inappropriate.




    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    It's part of the extension of the arguments that God should be removed from our currency and our pledge. I believe that you agree with that. If you agree with that, the removal of a specific religion or any religion from our public discourse and artifacts, then it isn't that much further to go to remove 'church'.
    But I'm not for removing religion from our public discourse. I'm only for removing Christian privilege. The currency and pledge issues are Christian privilege issues as they are both government interference in our lives (pretty minor in some respects but I'll grant you that they technically are).

    Individuals choosing to say SOCAT is not the same thing in the lease. Again, I CHOOSE to say SOCAT so it's about individual choice, not government intrusion. If your argument is correct, then I should make a different choice. So the SOCAT battle is over private conduct, not Christian privilege.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    That's fine- there will always be people that are unconvinced of changes. People have been using the word 'retard' for years, yet there is a growing movement to make people more sensitive to mental issues and to stop using it. It is all about individual empathy and sensitivity to a particular cause. If you agree then you will adopt the new word of phrase, if you don't then you don't.
    But that's an example of a change that should happen for a good reason. We don't want to hurt the feelings of certain people so we change our language and inhibit the use of the word "retard".

    And if there was a general societal recognition that SOCAT was harmful, then there will be more of a reason to change than there is now. As it is now, I'm only hearing one person make an unconvincing argument based on a technicality. If you could actually demonstrate that harm was being caused, your argument might have legs.



    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Sure, if we ever go back to being an entirely Christian country then it will be bad and the better term would be 'Church & State'. That's not likely to happen is it? We have a trajectory of more inclusion and more precise language.
    Actually there has been a change toward inclusion. SOCAT itself is a more inclusive term now than when it was originated. And I do not buy the argument that language becomes more precise as time goes on. In fact, I believe the opposite happens in many ways. Language changes primarily by people speaking the language "wrong" as in they violate the "rules" and definitions that were established earlier. It's not really wrong - it's just change. Language changes over time so we always speak it "wrong" by yesterday's standards.

    But regardless, I don't see any reason to accept the claim that language will become more precise as time goes on.



    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    You haven't established that it is the most effective term - you have only established that it is the only term that is in common usage.
    Well then, let's present a hypothetical situation.

    We are both in front of 1000 people of varying levels of knowledge and we both have the challenge of uttering a phrase that will relay the concept of TEC to the largest number of people possible. I choose SOCAT as my phrase and get a certain score (hypothetically 800). Do you actually think you can utter a phrase that will generate a higher score? If not, then SOCAT is the most effective term. If so, then please tell me what the term is and why it would generate a higher score.



    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    And they are the ones preventing the rapid change we need to make. Therefore, it is more than just being jerks.
    No it's not. They are being jerks by preventing change. So it's still jerks being jerks.

    Again, I'm ONLY concerned with privilege. That is what the debate is about.





    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I don't know about that - it was you that brought up the fact that an initially Christian term has been morphed to mean something that covers something that is the antithesis of Christianity. If so, then that word needs to be removed no matter how much people are used to it.
    And I retracted that argument so it's no longer in play.

    And my point is that if your goal is to remove unwarranted Christian influence, this is a very ineffective way to spend your time. I mean for everyone hour you spend on this you could spend helping the anti-pledge group which is clearly engaging in a much more productive struggle to remove unwarranted Christian influence. And they likewise have a reasonable chance of succeeding.




    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I don't remember what the whole other debate was - I thought we'd settled on you seeing the battle done and I saw it as really just beginning.
    "Pretty much", remember? But either way, I believe that perhaps we did agree to disagree. But if so, you can't base an argument on that premise that the battle has "just begun" for that position was never accepted as true. And if you are going to continue to argue it, then we have to cease agreeing to disagree and start up that debate again.
    Last edited by mican333; October 23rd, 2014 at 03:37 PM.

  13. Likes Squatch347, MindTrap028 liked this post
  14. #273
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    How on Earth is that a rebuttal? If anything, it shores up my point. I mean if language is a medium of communication then is stands to reason that the primary purpose of language is to communicate.
    Just a quick note - I meant to say that language is an encoding for communication but I think the rest of your logic still stands with that change.

    If you are going to rebut that point you have to either show that:
    1. The primary purpose of language is something other than communication
    2. There is no primary purpose to language.

    Your response does neither

    And of course you have a third option

    3. Ask me to support or retract my point (and to be clear, that's perfectly acceptable to me).

    Unless you do one of those three things you have not rebutted my point and it stands until it is rebutted.
    I will state it simply: The primary purpose of language is to facilitate communication. It does this by encoding thoughts into symbols that are transmitted between a sender and a receiver over some medium (text, image, sound).

    Language in of itself doesn't communicate - that is actually done by the sender and receiver of the message. The word 'church' is largely meaningless - it only has meaning between the sender and receiver.

    Remember, your rewording from #258 said:

    1. The PRIMARY purpose of language is to communicate.
    That is still inaccurate because language isn't the thing doing the communication (sender/received) or the transmission (media). It is the agreed upon encoding mechanism by which the server and receiver communicate. You can say the primary purpose of a phone is to communicate with or the primary purpose of language is to transcribe thoughts; but I really think that your statement is too imprecise for the discussion we're having. Let's just leave it at that for the moment.


    I'll not respond to the rest of your post though I did read everything but feel free to re-raise points that you want answers to. I think that will speed things up. We need to get past this point so that we can be on the same page regarding communication and language's specific role in it.

  15. #274
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,242
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Specially, what is the exact question you want an answer to or where is my explanation incomplete
    Please see post 268 for the exchange in question.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  16. #275
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Please see post 268 for the exchange in question.
    And? What's the question you want answered there? It just seems to be commentary than any specific question of substance. How do you want to move the discussion forward?

  17. #276
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,242
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    And? What's the question you want answered there?
    The question is still "How and why".

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It just seems to be commentary than any specific question of substance.
    Consider this line from that short post.
    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    You are not being very clear in your explanation here. I have no clue where I have done this in relation to what we are currently discussing.
    How or why do you read that as commentary without reference to any specific question of substance?
    Would you really have me believe that you can't follow the conversation that occurs over two posts? I mean, that would explain a lot, but I'm trying not to make that conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    How do you want to move the discussion forward?
    The discussion can move forward with you answering the question in a coherent fashion.
    That question repeated above in this post, and the full context of the exchange found quoted in post 268.
    Shouldn't be hard, of course if you can't be bothered to explain your claims or how they make sense I totally understand.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  18. #277
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The question is still "How and why". Consider this line from that short post. How or why do you read that as commentary without reference to any specific question of substance? Would you really have me believe that you can't follow the conversation that occurs over two posts? I mean, that would explain a lot, but I'm trying not to make that conclusion. The discussion can move forward with you answering the question in a coherent fashion. That question repeated above in this post, and the full context of the exchange found quoted in post 268. Shouldn't be hard, of course if you can't be bothered to explain your claims or how they make sense I totally understand.
    OK. Let's answer "You are not being very clear in your explanation here. I have no clue where I have done this in relation to what we are currently discussing."

    This is in response to your answer:

    JJ: No again. The primary purpose of language is not to communicate

    MT: I have to say, when you say things like this, it totally discredits your point of view as so distorted that it can not recognize the obvious.
    but.. to give you the benefit of the doubt. .. What is languages primary purpose then? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/language .... basically your statement is false evidences above.

    JJ: I think you are confusing the medium of communication with the agents doing the communicating.
    So here you supply a MW definition of language: "the system of words or signs that people use to express thoughts and feelings to each other"

    So the definition you supply is agrees with my original statement "The primary purpose of language is not to communicate". Which is true - language is the encoding of thoughts, which is what your MW definition specifies.

    Yet, you say they contradict. That tells me that you are packing a bunch of ideas into the single word 'language'. You believe that the primary purpose of language is to communicate; but "to communicate" isn't done by language - "to communicate" is done between the sender/receiver. A language's primary purpose, per what I have been saying, per your dictionary definition, is to encode thoughts and feeling. It does not communicate it: the transmission of information is done between the sender and the receiver and the communication is between the two.

    So I don't see how it follows that the primary purpose of language is to communicate unless you are conflating a bunch of ideas together. This is why I say that "I think you are confusing the medium of communication (language) with the agents doing the communicating (sender/receiver communicating)".

  19. #278
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,242
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So here you supply a MW definition of language: "the system of words or signs that people use to express thoughts and feelings to each other"

    So the definition you supply is agrees with my original statement "The primary purpose of language is not to communicate".
    That isn't what the definition says, so it doesn't "agree" it may be compatible with your reading, but that is certainly up for debate and I would directly challenge that understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Which is true - language is the encoding of thoughts, which is what your MW definition specifies.
    But what is "encoding of thoughts" if not "communication? You seem to be making a distinction where there is none.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Yet, you say they contradict.
    They contradict? as in your statement and the dictionary definition?
    Yes they contradict because the object and point being described is to communicate.
    People make signs and put sounds together called "language" because they are what we call "communication".

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    but "to communicate" isn't done by language - "to communicate" is done between the sender/receiver
    That is a completely irrelevant point to what is being said.
    Here is an example

    Suppose you hear a tapping sound on a pipe, you listen and for whatever reason conclude "they are trying to communicate!"
    What is the point of the tapping?... to communicate. The fact that "they" are doing it, and "You" are receiving it does not mean that the primary purpose of the tapping is to communicate.
    You can say, the point of the tapping is to embody, represent or otherwise carry an Idea or thought to one who would hear it.
    But is the exact same thing as saying "communicate". It isn't a contradiction or even a correction or clarification. It is a rewording of the self same idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    per what I have been saying, per your dictionary definition, is to encode thoughts and feeling.
    yea.. that is called C.O.M.M.U.N.I.C.A.T.I.O.N .. OR "COMMUNICATION.. for short.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It does not communicate it: the transmission of information is done between the sender and the receiver and the communication is between the two.
    No one says it does the communicating as to be the person sending or the one receiving.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So I don't see how it follows that the primary purpose of language is to communicate unless you are conflating a bunch of ideas together.
    What Ideas, and how are they conflated?

    I believe that I have shown your distinction of the purpose of language to be a distinction without a difference. I have no idea how rewording a point and saying "your wrong" forwards your case or should be thought of as convincing.
    The purpose of language is indeed to communicate as Mican has said. It should be abundantly clear to any reasonable minded approach.

    ... commentary.
    This is getting to be sad, if you have no better grounds to object to Micans point than this.. You should really re-think your position. If you do have better grounds, you would be better served to move to that.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  20. #279
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That isn't what the definition says, so it doesn't "agree" it may be compatible with your reading, but that is certainly up for debate and I would directly challenge that understanding.
    A minor quibble - I have been pretty consistent in what language is and what it isn't.


    JJ: Which is true - language is the encoding of thoughts, which is what your MW definition specifies.

    But what is "encoding of thoughts" if not "communication? You seem to be making a distinction where there is none.
    There's a huge distinction! That's what I mean that you're conflating a bunch of ideas together and packing them into 'communication'. Communication is the act of transmitting information between a sender and a receiver. The thing being transmitted is the message. The message is in an agreed upon language which is an encoding of thoughts.


    They contradict? as in your statement and the dictionary definition?
    Yes they contradict because the object and point being described is to communicate.
    People make signs and put sounds together called "language" because they are what we call "communication".
    No, my statement and your MW definition (or even my dictionary definitions from the OED) agree. Neither say that language's purpose is to communicate, which is what we're discussing. We all disagree with you (which according to your previous 'logic' means that you're wrong).

    Again, you say the purpose of language is "to communicate" but it isn't. The purpose of language is to encode thoughts into a form that is then communicated. Language is the thing being communicated. It is the message not the process.

    For example, you wouldn't say that the purpose of water is to distribute between a reservoir and the house. Rather, it is the purpose of the pipe, to distribute the water between the two. The whole thing is the distribution of water. Water is the thing being distributed.

    Language is the water that flows through the communication pipe (medium) between the sender and receiver. You need everything to call it a communication. It is not a communication without all those things. Therefore, language, by itself is NOT a communication - communication require a sender and a receiver. The thing being communicated is the language. You cannot say that the purpose of language is to communicate.


    JJ: but "to communicate" isn't done by language - "to communicate" is done between the sender/receiver
    That is a completely irrelevant point to what is being said.
    Here is an example

    Suppose you hear a tapping sound on a pipe, you listen and for whatever reason conclude "they are trying to communicate!"
    What is the point of the tapping?... to communicate. The fact that "they" are doing it, and "You" are receiving it does not mean that the primary purpose of the tapping is to communicate.
    You can say, the point of the tapping is to embody, represent or otherwise carry an Idea or thought to one who would hear it.
    Yes, the purpose of the tapping action is to communicate. But the taps themselves, the language, has as its primary purpose the role of encoding thoughts: for example, it could be morse code, a language using long and short taps. You are conflating the actions of transmission with the thing being transmitted.


    But is the exact same thing as saying "communicate". It isn't a contradiction or even a correction or clarification. It is a rewording of the self same idea.
    It's only the exact same thing if you don't use the word communicate properly.


    JJ: per what I have been saying, per your dictionary definition, is to encode thoughts and feeling.
    yea.. that is called C.O.M.M.U.N.I.C.A.T.I.O.N .. OR "COMMUNICATION.. for short.
    Nope - look at what the dictionary (yours) says:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communicate

    com·mu·ni·cat·edcom·mu·ni·cat·ing


    Full Definition of COMMUNICATE

    transitive verb
    1 archaic : share

    2
    a : to convey knowledge of or information about : make known <communicate a story>
    b : to reveal by clear signs communicated itself to his friends>

    3: to cause to pass from one to another communicated>

    intransitive verb
    1: to receive Communion

    2: to transmit information, thought, or feeling so that it is satisfactorily received or understood communicate with each other>

    3: to open into each other : connect communicate>
    com·mu·ni·ca·tee http://www.merriam-webster.com/style...ce/icons.jpg); background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0% -15px; background-repeat: no-repeat;"> noun
    com·mu·ni·ca·tor http://www.merriam-webster.com/style...ce/icons.jpg); background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 0% -15px; background-repeat: no-repeat;"> noun




    Note that communicate is a VERB here. It is what you mean when you say that something's primary purpose is "TO COMMUNICATE". Language, you should also note, is the THING being communicated - 'knowledge/information/signs'.


    JJ:It does not communicate it: the transmission of information is done between the sender and the receiver and the communication is between the two.
    No one says it does the communicating as to be the person sending or the one receiving.
    I guess no-one with a basic understanding of communication - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_communication:
    An information source, which produces a message.
    A transmitter, which encodes the message into signals
    A channel, to which signals are adapted for transmission
    A receiver, which 'decodes' (reconstructs) the message from the signal.
    A destination, where the message arrives.
    Note here there is no mention of 'language' - that is the encoding that is part of the message. It's a core (though simplistic, and mine is even more simplistic) model of the bits and pieces that go into a communication. So I wouldn't say no-one.

    Either way, I don't need information theory or semiotics to prove my point - the MW dictionary definitions are doing that sufficiently. The fact is that you're using 'communication' incorrectly to mean something that is not part of the dictionary definition.

    JJ:So I don't see how it follows that the primary purpose of language is to communicate unless you are conflating a bunch of ideas together.
    MT: What Ideas, and how are they conflated?
    You are confusing the language, which is the message being transmitted, with the transmission process itself. See pipe/water/reservoir/house analogy above.

    I believe that I have shown your distinction of the purpose of language to be a distinction without a difference. I have no idea how rewording a point and saying "your wrong" forwards your case or should be thought of as convincing.
    The purpose of language is indeed to communicate as Mican has said. It should be abundantly clear to any reasonable minded approach.
    Well, you're wrong because you are not following the dictionary definitions of language and communication; both of which make the same exact distinction I am making, that you're not understanding. It has never been an unjustified claim - you are indeed conflating two different ideas together.

    What's weird is that your using a noun that is a passive thing (language) in an active context (communication). Language can no more 'communicate' than it can 'encode'. The correct way to say is is that language is an encoding, language can be a communication (a letter, telegraph, email).

    You cannot continue to say that the purpose of language is communication when you have a dictionary definition that says that the primary purpose of language is to encode thoughts. Encoding something is not the same a communicating it. When you encode something, you convert it from one form into another, in this case thoughts into letters. When you communicate, you are transmitting it from a sender to a receiver (by morse tapping, via a postcard, via email). They're entirely different things. I don't know how you can possibly see that they're the same thing!


    ... commentary.
    This is getting to be sad, if you have no better grounds to object to Micans point than this.. You should really re-think your position. If you do have better grounds, you would be better served to move to that.
    I do have better grounds for every single point but by his request, we are starting from his first point. The reason why it is important to understand language and communication and what each thing is and what it does, is that it sets the foundation for why his second point is wrong. But we cannot move forward unless we share the same model of what communication is - mine is much more accurate and much more precise. It is backed by dictionary definitions, information theory, the philosophy of language, and semiotics.

    To be honest, I don't see what you're doing other than digging your heels in. It is hardly a huge intellectual leap to distinguish between a message and the process of transmission; between encoding something and transmitting it; between a code and how we transfer the code between a sender and a receiver. I've yet to see an honest analysis from you other than to keep restating your incorrect understanding of dictionary definitions!

  21. #280
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,242
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: An End To Christian Privilege

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Again, you say the purpose of language is "to communicate" but it isn't. The purpose of language is to encode thoughts into a form that is then communicated. Language is the thing being communicated. It is the message not the process.
    Language is defined as a system of communication. The encoding of information is part of that system, but it is no less a system.
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/language
    says it is the means of communication.

    It is absolutly proper to say that the point of a system of communication is... communication.
    Nothing you have said negates that in the least.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Language is the water that flows through the communication pipe (medium) between the sender and receiver. You need everything to call it a communication. It is not a communication without all those things. Therefore, language, by itself is NOT a communication - communication require a sender and a receiver. The thing being communicated is the language. You cannot say that the purpose of language is to communicate.
    This is actually a very good analogy that explains why your thinking is broken.
    Water is not "language". Water is the message the idea that needs transmission.
    The resivour and house are the sender and reciever (note how both contain water IE ideas that need to be transmitted)
    and the system of pipes are language.

    The purpose of the pipes can be said and is commonly said to communicate water, that is it's point of existing.
    And that is what was claimed by Mican.

    What you are arguing is an irrelevant point. You can be 100% correct in your reading, and Mican can also be 100% correct in his claim.
    Because they are not mutually exclusive.

    Quote Originally Posted by jj
    You cannot continue to say that the purpose of language is communication when you have a dictionary definition that says that the primary purpose of language is to encode thoughts.
    That is not the lone definition of language.
    In fact, it says that language is for communicating.
    That is totally within the real of proper expression to say that it's point is to communicate, when it is a system for communicating.


    That is why I say this is your very weakest objection possible to his points.. it's semantics and you refuse to see any other valid use then the one you wish to use. That is why I said it is getting sad, because you selectively read the definitions and see only the ones that fit your perspective. That is not limited to this point or this particular discussion, it is a fundamental problem in your approach here. You are simply unwilling to see.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

 

 
Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A blog from Christian CADRE on early Christian writings
    By Lukecash12 in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 6th, 2011, 07:03 AM
  2. Does Christian Silence Mean Christian Defeat?
    By sonofnietzsche in forum ODN Debates Discussion
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2010, 05:25 PM
  3. Replies: 19
    Last Post: June 11th, 2007, 09:26 AM
  4. Executive Privilege
    By manise in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2007, 01:35 PM
  5. What is a Christian?
    By Apokalupsis in forum Religion
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: March 16th, 2006, 04:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •