>No, I'm not. The problem is that you are dead set on your perceived "true meaning" of the word, and you cannot get past anyone using a different definition regardless of how explicit they are about it. My argument is not that the string of letters "politics" is bad, which would then require me to set a precise definition of the word to make my argument fit my other beliefs. My argument is that government is bad, and that participation in government, even with good intentions, is bad. "Politics" is the perfect word to use when referring to "participation in government," so I used that term. When people brought up a potential different definition of "politics," I immediately gave the definition I was using in my first claim. That should be the end of the semantic argument, but people persist, many ignoring my actual claim.
Well, if you have ANOTHER MEANING for the word, why do you feel the need to use the same word, and not another one, even a made-up one?
I'd say it's because, however you might want to define your own definitions, you cannot escape the overall reach of the terms.
You argue against semantics, but semantics is all you're doing: you're not putting forward a different description of politics (explaining how it will work, etc), you're just redifining the word to mean something else.
If we were allowed to do that, no discussion could ever take place. For one, now other persons in the discussion cannot use the same word in their argumentation, because you just redefined the term.
>My argument is that government is bad, and that participation in government, even with good intentions, is bad.
OK, that's something we can work with. How is that solved by prefering "anarchy" or "non politics"? Might as well say "I'm against gravity". You still are subject to government and it's laws. And the only way to change that is:
1) Go to some remote area and start a commune.
2) Convince people to abolish government (which necessitates entering into the political sphere).
>Again, in this paragraph, you are appealing to your perceived "true meaning" of the word "government," and until you provide that definition, you haven't really presented any ideas that can be intelligently discussed.
Notice how "his perceived true meaning" is actually the true dictionary meaning everybody agrees upon. You substituted your own definition, and now you act as he is using some weird meaning of his own.
It's vastly better to avoid redefining any term, and just DESCRIBE (with many words, instead of using a token redefined by you term) what you want to say.
That is 'I'm providing definitions and using those to construct actual ideas, rather than appealing to "true meanings"' is the worst thing you could possibly do in a coversation. Stop with the redefinitions, and work with descriptions and arguments.
>Those would be semantic arguments, and I seem to be one of few people in this thread not making semantic arguments.
On the contrary, you are the one person in this thread that fucked up semantics, by coming with your own definitions of words. That's semantics work per se.
Well, if you have ANOTHER MEANING for the word, why do you feel the need to use the same word, and not another one, even a made-up one?
I'd say it's because, however you might want to define your own definitions, you cannot escape the overall reach of the terms.
You argue against semantics, but semantics is all you're doing: you're not putting forward a different description of politics (explaining how it will work, etc), you're just redifining the word to mean something else.
If we were allowed to do that, no discussion could ever take place. For one, now other persons in the discussion cannot use the same word in their argumentation, because you just redefined the term.
>My argument is that government is bad, and that participation in government, even with good intentions, is bad.
OK, that's something we can work with. How is that solved by prefering "anarchy" or "non politics"? Might as well say "I'm against gravity". You still are subject to government and it's laws. And the only way to change that is:
1) Go to some remote area and start a commune. 2) Convince people to abolish government (which necessitates entering into the political sphere).
>Again, in this paragraph, you are appealing to your perceived "true meaning" of the word "government," and until you provide that definition, you haven't really presented any ideas that can be intelligently discussed.
Notice how "his perceived true meaning" is actually the true dictionary meaning everybody agrees upon. You substituted your own definition, and now you act as he is using some weird meaning of his own.
It's vastly better to avoid redefining any term, and just DESCRIBE (with many words, instead of using a token redefined by you term) what you want to say.
That is 'I'm providing definitions and using those to construct actual ideas, rather than appealing to "true meanings"' is the worst thing you could possibly do in a coversation. Stop with the redefinitions, and work with descriptions and arguments.
>Those would be semantic arguments, and I seem to be one of few people in this thread not making semantic arguments.
On the contrary, you are the one person in this thread that fucked up semantics, by coming with your own definitions of words. That's semantics work per se.